ANSWER KEY - QUIZZERS (327 Cases Penned by Amy Lazaro-Javier)

ANSWER KEY: 

Case 1 of 327: 3M Philippines Inc. vs. Lauro D. Yuseco (G.R. No. 248941)

📌 ANSWER KEY WITH EXPLANATIONS:

1. C – Redundancy due to organizational restructuring
3M Philippines justified Yuseco’s termination by citing a corporate merger that rendered his position superfluous.

2. B – Conducted a merger of business groups and identified overlapping roles
The company merged the Industrial and Safety & Graphics Business Groups, leading to role redundancy.

3. B – There was insufficient proof of redundancy
The Court of Appeals ruled the dismissal illegal due to lack of supporting documents proving the redundancy.

4. A – Personal friendship with management
Friendship is not a valid criterion; only fair, objective factors like efficiency and seniority are acceptable.

5. C – They were accepted as substantial evidence
The Supreme Court held that affidavits of HR officers with personal knowledge satisfied the requirement for substantial evidence.

6. B – Because the letters actually complemented each other when read together
The Court ruled that the two letters were not contradictory but explained the same redundancy-based termination.

7. B – Lopez had higher performance ratings and broader experience
Lopez was retained based on a broader work scope and superior ratings, unlike Yuseco who only had industrial experience.

8. C – Separation package as previously computed by the employer
Yuseco was not reinstated but was awarded the special separation package computed by 3M.

9. C – Sent written notices to both the employee and the labor department
3M complied with labor regulations by notifying both Yuseco and the DOLE at least 30 days in advance.

10. C – Employers may validly reduce workforce if positions become unnecessary
The Court reiterated that redundancy is lawful even if the company is not in financial distress.

---

🎓 Great job reviewing! Keep practicing for mastery of key labor doctrines.

Case 160 of 327: People of the Philippines vs. Nestor Bendecio y Viejo alias "Tan", G.R. No. 235016, promulgated on September 8, 2020

1. C. Complex crime of murder with attempted murder
👉 The accused’s single act of shooting resulted in one death (murder) and one failed killing (attempted murder), constituting a complex crime.

2. B. Aberratio ictus
👉 This doctrine applies when an unlawful act intended for one victim affects another due to a mistake in aim.

3. C. The child had no chance to defend herself
👉 The Court ruled the killing as murder because the child, an unintended victim, was completely helpless and the attack was sudden.

4. D. Gerry Marasigan
👉 The shooter’s true target was Gerry Marasigan, whom he tried to kill by firing at him directly.

5. C. The bullet missed and did not cause fatal injury
👉 The attempt to kill Gerry was unsuccessful not due to the shooter’s desistance, but because he missed.

6. C. It produced two grave felonies arising from one act
👉 The Court classified the shooting as a complex crime because one act led to both murder and attempted murder.

7. C. Treachery
👉 Treachery was appreciated in both the attempted and consummated acts due to the sudden and unprovoked nature of the attack.

8. B. Their testimonies were consistent and candid
👉 The Court upheld the credibility of the prosecution witnesses because they testified in a straightforward, convincing, and consistent manner.

9. C. It was uncorroborated and inconsistent
👉 The defense’s alibi was weak because it lacked any supporting evidence and could not overcome positive identification by witnesses.

10. B. Reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole
👉 The Supreme Court imposed reclusion perpetua without parole as mandated for murder cases where the death penalty is prohibited under R.A. 9346.

CASE 161: People of the Philippines vs. Marvin Bolado y Naval, G.R. No. 227356, promulgated on October 16, 2019.

1. B. The chain of custody of the drug was broken
   ➤ The Supreme Court acquitted Bolado because the required procedural safeguards for preserving the identity of the seized drug were not followed.

2. C. DOJ representative and elected official
   ➤ The law mandates their presence during the inventory; their absence constituted a fatal lapse in the chain of custody.

3. C. Police station
   ➤ The photographs were not taken at the place of arrest, violating proper procedure for handling seized drugs.

4. B. 0.06 gram
   ➤ Bolado was accused of selling a small amount—0.06 grams—of shabu during the buy-bust operation.

5. C. Clear non-compliance with chain of custody rules
   ➤ The presumption of regularity cannot cure major lapses in following required procedures.

6. C. Illegal sale of dangerous drugs
   ➤ He was charged specifically with the sale, not possession or manufacture, of methamphetamine.

7. B. Dangerous Drugs Act
   ➤ The case hinged on compliance with procedural requirements under the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act (RA 9165).

8. D. Middleman in the buy-bust
   ➤ The confidential informant facilitated the transaction but was not the actual poseur-buyer.

9. B. No justifiable reason was presented for the procedural lapses
   ➤ The saving clause could not apply because the prosecution failed to explain or justify the deviation from procedure.

10. B. Evidence is considered contaminated
    ➤ Breaks in the chain of custody cast doubt on the integrity of the drug, weakening its value as evidence.

Case 162: People v. Bombasi y Vergara (G.R. No. 230555, October 9, 2019)

1. B – The police failed to justify their deviation from procedural requirements
👉 The Court held that unjustified non-compliance with the chain of custody rules invalidated the evidence.

---

2. C – Compliance with the chain of custody procedure
👉 The integrity of drug evidence hinges on an unbroken, well-documented chain of custody.

3. C – They serve as required witnesses in the inventory process
👉 The law mandates their presence to insulate against tampering or planting of evidence.

4. C – Inventory and marking were not done at the scene
👉 The police conducted these at the station, violating the requirement for on-site processing.

5. B – Chain of custody
👉 This principle ensures the proper handling of evidence from seizure until court presentation.

6. B – Explained and justified to preserve integrity
👉 Procedural lapses may be excused only with valid explanation and proof of evidence integrity.

7. C – Drug cases require strict adherence to evidence handling
👉 The Court emphasized that strict compliance is necessary due to the nature of the offense.

8. B – Presence of required witnesses
👉 Only a media representative was present; DOJ and an elected official were absent during inventory.

9. C – Ensures the drugs are immediately marked and witnessed at the arrest scene
👉 The first link is crucial to proving the identity and origin of the seized items.

10. C – It undermines the reliability of the evidence
👉 Without compliance or justification, the integrity of the evidence becomes doubtful, leading to acquittal.

CASE 163 OF 327: People of the Philippines vs. Naci Borras y Lascano G.R. No. 250295, March 15, 2021

✅ ANSWER KEY WITH EXPLANATIONS:

1. C. The public prosecutor
    🔎 Because the prosecutor represents the State, which is the offended party in criminal drug cases, their consent is required in plea bargaining.
2. B. Illegal possession and sale of dangerous drugs
    🔎 The accused was charged with both selling and possessing methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.
3. C. It declared the DOJ circulars unconstitutional
    🔎 The trial court allowed the plea bargain by striking down DOJ issuances it deemed contrary to the Supreme Court’s authority.
4. C. Possession of drug paraphernalia
    🔎 The accused pleaded guilty to a lesser offense involving possession of paraphernalia, not to the original drug sale and possession charges.
5. C. Deleted that part from the ruling
    🔎 While affirming the conviction, the Court of Appeals removed the RTC’s ruling that declared DOJ circulars unconstitutional.
6. B. It invalidated the plea bargain for lack of mutual agreement
    🔎 The Supreme Court ruled that the plea bargain was void because it was done without the required consent of the prosecutor.
7. C. The State
    🔎 In drug cases, the legal victim is the State, as it is society that suffers harm from drug crimes.
8. B. A discretionary privilege, not a demandable right
    🔎 Plea bargaining is allowed only upon agreement of the parties and court approval; it is not a matter of right.
9. C. It lacked the required prosecutorial consent
    🔎 The absence of the prosecutor’s agreement rendered the plea and resulting conviction invalid.
10. C. They are internal guidelines that do not usurp the Court’s rule-making power
     🔎 The Supreme Court clarified that DOJ Circulars guide prosecutors internally and do not override judicial rules.

 

CASE 164 OF 327: 

CASE 165 OF 327: People of the Philippines v. Pilar Burdeos y Oropa G.R. No. 218434, July 17, 2019

✅ ANSWER KEY WITH EXPLANATIONS – People v. Burdeos Quizzer

1. C. The chain of custody was repeatedly broken
   👉 The Supreme Court acquitted the accused due to multiple unexplained breaches in the chain of custody, undermining the integrity of the evidence.

2. C. The dangerous drug seized
   👉 In drug-related cases, corpus delicti refers to the drug itself as the essential element of the crime.

3. D. Court stenographer
   👉 A court stenographer is not required during inventory; the law requires a media representative, DOJ representative, and elected public official.

4. B. There were serious lapses in procedure without justification
   👉 The Court held that procedural violations without valid explanation cannot be cured by the presumption of regularity.

5. A. Chain of custody
   👉 Marking the drug only at the station instead of immediately at the place of arrest violates the first link in the chain of custody.

6. C. They contradicted each other on the handling of evidence
   👉 Inconsistent testimonies between the officers regarding who handled the drugs created doubt and broke the chain of custody.

7. B. The transfer of the drugs to the forensic chemist
   👉 The prosecution failed to clearly establish who delivered the drugs to the lab, creating a missing link in the chain.

8. C. It was insufficient without the other required witnesses
   👉 The presence of a civilian alone during inventory does not satisfy the legal requirement of having three specific witnesses.

9. C. Provide a valid explanation and prove integrity of evidence
   👉 The law permits deviations only if the prosecution justifies them and proves that the drug evidence remained intact.

10. D. The accused may be acquitted
    👉 Without justifiable reasons for non-compliance, the Court must acquit the accused due to compromised evidence integrity.

CASE 166 OF 327: People of the Philippines vs. Niña Caray y Emmanuel, G.R. No. 245391 | September 11, 2019

1. B. Procedural lapses in inventory
   👉 The Supreme Court acquitted the accused because required procedures during the inventory of seized drugs were not followed.
2. B. To prevent switching or tampering
   👉 The presence of insulating witnesses ensures the credibility and integrity of the seized items.
3. B. She was framed and illegally detained
   👉 The accused claimed she was illegally arrested and a demand for money was made by the arresting officers.
4. C. To ensure evidence integrity
   👉 An unbroken chain of custody proves that the evidence presented in court is the same as that originally seized.
5. C. It opens the possibility of evidence contamination
   👉 The absence of required witnesses allows the possibility of tampering, which weakens the prosecution’s case.
6. C. Required witnesses during inventory were missing
   👉 No DOJ representative or elected official was present during the inventory, violating established procedure.
7. B. That attempts were made to contact other available witnesses
   👉 The prosecution failed to show earnest efforts to find alternative witnesses, which is required under the saving clause.
8. C. The saving clause
   👉 This doctrine allows deviation from procedure if justified and if the evidence's integrity is preserved.
9. B. That good faith efforts were made
   👉 Courts require proof that authorities seriously tried to comply with procedural requirements, even if ultimately unsuccessful.
10. C. Broken chain of custody and lack of justifiable explanation
    👉 Without an unbroken chain or valid excuse for non-compliance, the drugs were deemed inadmissible.

 

CASE 167 OF 327:  People v. Philip Carreon y Mendiola, G.R. No. 229086 (Jan. 15, 2020):

1. C. There was no proof of actual restraint or intent to detain
   ➤ The Court ruled that the prosecution failed to prove the essential element of illegal detention—deprivation of liberty.

2. D. The complainant willingly stayed with the accused
   ➤ Her voluntary presence with the accused weakened the claim that she was forcibly detained.

3. C. That they were in a romantic relationship
   ➤ Their status as sweethearts undermined the theory of abduction or coercion.

4. C. She had chances to leave but didn’t
   ➤ The complainant admitted having opportunities to escape but chose to stay.

5. C. Prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt
   ➤ The ruling emphasized that all criminal convictions require this high standard of proof.

6. C. The complainant never tried to escape despite opportunities
   ➤ Her inaction suggested no intent by the accused to restrict her liberty.

7. C. She feared the consequences of the case filed by her parents
   ➤ Her fear was not caused by the accused but by the situation with her parents.

8. C. By examining its consistency with common human behavior
   ➤ The Court held that credible testimony must align with normal human conduct.

9. B. Criminal Law
   ➤ The case deals with kidnapping, serious illegal detention, and rape—all under criminal law.

10. D. Proof beyond reasonable doubt
    ➤ Without meeting this standard, the Supreme Court held that conviction is not justified.

 

CASE 168 OF 327 People of the Philippines v. Ronilee Casabuena y Francisco and Kevin Formaran y Gilera; G.R. No.: 246580; Date: June 23, 2020

1. C. The killing occurred by reason or on occasion of the robbery.
   ➡ The Supreme Court ruled that liability attaches when a killing happens by reason or on occasion of the robbery, regardless of who is killed or who does the killing.

2. C. The established conspiracy among the robbers.
   ➡ The Court found that conspiracy was proven; thus, the acts of one conspirator are attributable to all.

3. D. The robbers acted in concert during the commission of the crime.
   ➡ The coordinated and concerted actions of the accused during the robbery showed unity of purpose, proving conspiracy.

4. B. Part of the single crime of robbery with homicide.
   ➡ The killing of a co-conspirator by a police officer during the robbery’s aftermath was still deemed part of the complex crime.

5. C. The killing was not connected to the robbery.
   ➡ The accused argued there was no direct relation between the robbery and the killing, but the Court disagreed.

6. C. There was a direct connection between the robbery and the killing.
   ➡ The Court emphasized that the killing happened on the occasion of the robbery, thus meeting the legal requirement.

7. C. The presence of a conspiracy.
   ➡ Conspiracy allowed the imputation of criminal liability for the homicide to all co-conspirators.

8. B. The killing happens after the robbery.
   ➡ Timing is irrelevant; as long as the killing is connected to the robbery, liability remains.

9. B. The killing happened on the occasion of the robbery.
   ➡ This satisfies the legal condition for the crime of robbery with homicide.

10. C. Anyone, including the robbers themselves.
    ➡ The Court clarified that even the death of a fellow robber can satisfy the homicide element in robbery with homicide.

CASE 169 OF 327: People of the Philippines vs. Edgardo Catacutan y Mortera alias "Batibot" "Enzo" & "Gerry" G.R. No. 260731, February 13, 2023   

 

1. C – He was guilty of homicide and theft
👉 The Supreme Court ruled that the intent to rob did not precede the killing, thus convicting him of two separate crimes instead of robbery with homicide.

2. C – Clear premeditated intent to rob before the killing
👉 The Court emphasized that the absence of prior intent to steal negated the classification as robbery with homicide.

3. C – An admission against interest and admissible
👉 The accused’s confession to a friend was voluntary, specific, and incriminating, thus qualifying as an admissible admission against interest.

4. C – The killing was not related to the intention to steal
👉 The theft happened only after the killing, which was allegedly due to personal anger, making it an afterthought.

5. C – Security guard’s logbook and testimony
👉 The guard documented and confirmed the accused's presence at the victim’s apartment during the critical timeframe.

6. C – The intent to rob only came after the killing
👉 The Court found that the accused decided to steal only after killing the victim due to a separate motive.

7. C – The acts constitute separate offenses
👉 The legal rule holds that when the robbery follows the homicide without prior intent, they are treated as distinct crimes.

8. A – Confession and attempt to sell the items
👉 The accused admitted to selling the stolen items, supporting the finding of theft even in the absence of item recovery.

9. B – The order and intent behind the acts
👉 The sequencing of the killing before the theft and the accused’s motive were crucial in classifying the offenses.

10. D – Estimated worth based on attempted sale
👉 The penalty was based on the accused’s own attempt to sell a stolen item, which helped approximate the total value.

 

CASE 170 OF 327: People of the Philippines vs. Elinjer Corpuz Y Daguio G.R. No. 220486 | June 26, 2019

1. D. Accidental shooting
   ➤ The accused claimed the gun accidentally discharged during a struggle with the victim.
2. C. The victim was pinned down and unable to defend himself
   ➤ Treachery was appreciated because the attack was sudden, and the victim was defenseless when shot.
3. C. The credible eyewitness accounts
   ➤ The Supreme Court relied on the consistent testimonies of the victim’s wife and son, which contradicted the accident claim.
4. B. There was no proof of planning before the shooting
   ➤ Evident premeditation was rejected due to lack of evidence that the killing was planned in advance.
5. D. Credible and straightforward
   ➤ The Court found the witnesses’ testimonies spontaneous and believable, even if they were related to the victim.
6. C. Reclusion perpetua
   ➤ The penalty for murder without aggravating circumstances is reclusion perpetua.
7. D. Nominal damages
   ➤ The Court awarded civil, moral, exemplary, and temperate damages, but not nominal damages.
8. C. Treachery
   ➤ The qualifying circumstance that elevated the crime to murder was treachery.
9. B. Fled into the fields holding a gun
   ➤ Witnesses saw the accused walk away into the fields while still holding the firearm after the shooting.
10. C. The testimonies were consistent and lacked improper motive
    ➤ The appellate courts upheld the credibility of the prosecution's witnesses due to their clear, consistent accounts and absence of ill motive.

 

CASE 171 OF 327: People of the Philippines vs. Danilo Reyes Crisologo and Roberto Loleng Manlavi, G.R. No. 253327, June 27, 2022

1. C. President
Danilo Crisologo was the President of PADC and approved the pricing memorandum that led to the irregular sale.

2. B. Wingtips Parts Corporation
The parts were sold to Wingtips at significantly reduced prices, resulting in undue benefits to the company.

3. C. The parts were allegedly obsolete
The accused justified the low pricing by claiming the aircraft parts were nearing obsolescence, which the court rejected.

4. B. 30%
PADC’s revised pricing policy mandated a 30% markup on parts acquired from local sources.

5. C. ₱6.6 million
The financial loss to the government due to the underpriced sale amounted to approximately ₱6.6 million.

6. C. Unwarranted benefit
A key element of the anti-graft violation is when a public officer gives a private party any unwarranted benefit.

7. C. They were still stored in the inventory and not obsolete
The Supreme Court found the parts were still in stock and therefore not subject to depreciation or classified as obsolete.

8. C. They bypassed the pricing committee and board
Crisologo and Manlavi unilaterally implemented the pricing guidelines without board or committee approval.

9. C. Computer-printed receipts
Instead of official receipts, the accused used computer-printed ones, violating COA regulations on documentation.

10. D. Imprisonment and perpetual disqualification from public office
The Supreme Court affirmed their conviction with a sentence of 6 years and 1 month to 10 years, plus perpetual disqualification. 

CASE 173 OF 327: People of the Philippines vs. Chris John Custodio y Argote; G.R. No. 251741, June 14, 2023

1. C. Conducting the inventory at the police station without justification
    ➡ The Supreme Court held that the inventory must be done at the place of seizure unless a valid justification is clearly provided.

2. C. Rendered the seized items inadmissible
    ➡ The broken chain of custody compromised the identity and integrity of the evidence, making it inadmissible in court.

3. C. It must be strictly followed unless adequately justified
    ➡ Strict compliance is mandatory unless a sensible, consistent reason for deviation is offered by the police.

4. C. Sensible and specific justification
    ➡ The law requires a concrete, not generic, explanation for not conducting the inventory at the arrest site.

5. C. The first link in the chain of custody was broken
    ➡ The Court reversed its decision due to the unexcused failure to comply with the initial step of the chain of custody.

6. C. Criminal prosecution for drug offenses
    ➡ The case arose from violations of laws prohibiting the sale and possession of dangerous drugs.

7. C. Insufficient to cure the prior breach
    ➡ The later presence of insulating witnesses at the police station could not fix the initial procedural defect.

8. C. The integrity and identity of the corpus delicti
    ➡ The Court stressed that any break in the chain of custody casts doubt on the legitimacy of the evidence.

9. C. Protection of constitutional rights
    ➡ The Court underscored the importance of upholding the rights of the accused, even amid the war on drugs.

10. C. Acquitted and immediately released
     ➡ Due to the fatal procedural lapses, the Supreme Court acquitted the accused and ordered his release.

CASE 175 OF 327: People of the Philippines vs. Altantor Dela Torre y Cabalar

G.R. No. 225789, July 29, 2019

Here are the answers to the quiz questions along with brief explanations:

1. C – The chain of custody was breached
➡️ The Supreme Court acquitted the accused due to multiple procedural violations that broke the chain of custody of the drug evidence.

2. C – To preserve the identity and integrity of the evidence
➡️ Strict compliance ensures that the drug presented in court is the same item seized, safeguarding against tampering or substitution.

3. B – Conduct the physical inventory and take photographs
➡️ Law requires immediate inventory and photographing of seized items to maintain evidentiary integrity.

4. C – The suspect, a barangay official, DOJ, and media representatives
➡️ These witnesses are mandated by law to be present during inventory and documentation to prevent abuse or manipulation.

5. C – The integrity of the evidence is questioned
➡️ Non-compliance without justification creates doubt on the legitimacy of the evidence, often resulting in acquittal.

6. C – A mugshot and a man writing
➡️ The prosecution failed to provide proper photographs of the seized items as required, presenting irrelevant images instead.

7. C – It was already dark and they feared commotion
➡️ The police claimed potential disturbance as the reason for not doing the inventory at the scene, which the Court found unjustified.

8. B – No, if lapses affect the integrity of evidence
➡️ The presumption of regularity cannot override clear breaches of mandatory procedures that affect evidence reliability.

9. C – It is the actual drug that must be proven to be the same item seized
➡️ In drug cases, the “corpus delicti” is the illicit substance, and its identity must be proven beyond doubt.

10. C – Accused acquitted
➡️ Due to serious violations of procedural safeguards, the Supreme Court reversed the conviction and acquitted the accused.

Case  175 of 327

Case  176 of 327

People vs. Delos Reyes, G.R. No. 264958, August 14, 2023:

---

1. C. To collect money as part of an initiation
👉 The victim accompanied the accused as part of a supposed fraternity initiation involving collecting money.

2. B. Pointing a knife and tying him up
👉 The accused pointed a knife at the victim and tied him up, beginning the illegal detention.

3. D. The victim was a minor
👉 The Supreme Court ruled that detention of a minor qualifies the act as serious illegal detention.

4. C. Consistent and credible
👉 The SC and lower courts found the minor’s testimony straightforward and convincing.

5. C. The victim voluntarily came with him
👉 The accused’s main defense was that the victim voluntarily accompanied him and no force was used.

6. C. They were immaterial to the issue
👉 The Court ruled that the absence of wrist marks was trivial and didn’t disprove the detention.

7. B. Civil, moral, and exemplary damages
👉 The accused was ordered to pay ₱75,000 each in civil indemnity, moral, and exemplary damages.

8. A. Victim's age and pit depth
👉 The act of pushing a 15-year-old into a 20-foot pit demonstrated intent to deprive liberty.

9. B. Absence of mitigating or aggravating circumstances
👉 Under applicable rules, reclusion perpetua was imposed because there were no modifying circumstances.

10. C. The conviction was affirmed
👉 The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of serious illegal detention with full penalties.

Case  177 of 327

People of the Philippines vs. Paulino Delos Santos Jr., G.R. No. 248929, November 9, 2020:

1. C. Parricide
   🔹 The crime committed was parricide—killing of a parent by their child.

2. B. Father and son
   🔹 The victim was the father of the accused, Paulino Sr.

3. C. Positive eyewitness identification
   🔹 The conviction was based on a credible lone eyewitness testimony.

4. C. Proof of motive
   🔹 Motive is not essential when identity is clearly established.

5. B. It can be enough if found credible
   🔹 The Court held that one credible witness is sufficient to convict.

6. C. Fleeing the crime scene
   🔹 Flight is a strong indication of guilt, as cited by the Court.

7. C. Heated drunken argument
   🔹 The stabbing happened during a drunken altercation with his father.

8. D. Dismissed as weak and self-serving
   🔹 Alibi and denial were rejected in favor of positive ID by a witness.

9. C. Reclusion perpetua
   🔹 The SC upheld the sentence of reclusion perpetua (no parole).

10. D. Civil, moral, exemplary, and temperate damages
    🔹 SC awarded ₱75,000 each in civil, moral, and exemplary, and ₱50,000 in temperate damages, with 6% interest per annum.

Case  178 of 327

People v. Diamante, G.R. No. 231980, October 9, 2019:

---

1. C. The prosecution failed to maintain an unbroken chain of custody
👉 The Supreme Court acquitted the accused due to multiple breaks in the chain of custody, which cast doubt on the integrity of the drug evidence.

2. B. Presence of both DOJ and media representatives
👉 The law requires that the inventory be witnessed by a DOJ and media representative, which was not complied with during the seizure.

3. C. Chain of Custody
👉 This rule ensures the identity and integrity of the seized drugs from the moment of seizure until presentation in court.

4. C. The illegal drug itself
👉 In drug cases, the corpus delicti is the dangerous drug which must be proven to be the same one seized and presented in court.

5. C. The police laboratory custodian
👉 PO2 Sotero Tauro Jr., who received and handled the evidence before it reached the forensic chemist, was not presented, creating a break in custody.

6. B. There was a lack of continuity in handling
👉 The chain of custody was broken due to mishandling and unaccounted transfers of the seized drug, making the evidence unreliable.

7. A. There was no available DOJ representative in the province
👉 The PDEA agent claimed in court that there was no DOJ representative available in Sultan Kudarat during the operation.

8. C. Private prosecutor
👉 Only a barangay official, media representative, and DOJ representative are mandated witnesses during physical inventory—not the private prosecutor.

9. D. As sufficient to create reasonable doubt
👉 The Court found the inconsistencies in witness testimonies material enough to affect the credibility of the prosecution's case.

10. C. Clear breaches in mandatory procedure were present
👉 The presumption of regularity was set aside because substantial violations in the mandated chain of custody procedures occurred.

Case  179 of 327

Case  180 of 327

People of the Philippines vs. Jomar Doca y Villaluna, G.R. No. 233479, October 16, 2019:

 

1. B. The burden shifts to the accused to prove unlawful aggression

→ When self-defense is invoked, the accused must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the victim was the aggressor. (SC ruling, p. 25)

 

2. C. Treachery was not adequately proven

→ The Supreme Court held that although the attack was sudden, it did not constitute treachery because the victim had forewarning of danger. (p. 33)

 

3. D. There was no credible evidence of unlawful aggression

→ The accused’s testimony was self-serving and uncorroborated; no unlawful aggression from the victim was established. (p. 27–28)

 

4. C. It was appreciated as a mitigating circumstance

→ The Court credited voluntary surrender as mitigating since it was spontaneous and done before arrest. (p. 37)

 

5. D. Indeterminate sentence of 8 years to 12 years and 6 months

→ The penalty was reduced from reclusion perpetua to an indeterminate sentence appropriate for homicide with a mitigating circumstance. (p. 38)

 

6. D. The victim could have foreseen the danger

→ Since the accused was visibly angry and armed, the victim should not be considered completely unsuspecting. Thus, no treachery. (p. 32)

 

7. C. Self-serving and uncorroborated testimony

→ The accused had no supporting evidence or witnesses to back up his claim of self-defense. (p. 28)

 

8. C. Eyewitness account of the stabbing

→ The Court gave weight to the testimony of Rogelio Castro, who saw the stabbing firsthand. (p. 29)

 

9. C. Actual damages

→ The Supreme Court deleted the ₱30,000 actual damages for lack of documentary evidence and instead awarded temperate damages. (p. 40)

 

10. C. 6% per annum from finality of decision

→ The Court imposed legal interest of 6% per annum on monetary awards from finality until fully paid. (p. 41)

 

✅ Great job reviewing! These points are key to mastering the doctrine of self-defense and qualifying circumstances in criminal law.

 

From <https://chatgpt.com/g/g-ipZC0xKZ1-case-digest/c/66eeb645-c25c-800a-8b4d-2d8a7141964a>

 

Case  181 of 327

📌 Answer Key with Explanations – People vs. Dolendo (G.R. No. 223098, June 3, 2019)

1. C. To burn the house
   👉 The Supreme Court found that the accused's primary intent was to set the house on fire, not to kill.
2. C. Simple arson
   👉 Because the death was incidental to the intent of burning property, the crime was classified as simple arson.
3. C. The intent to kill was not established
   👉 The Court emphasized that without proof of intent to kill, the resulting death is absorbed by the crime of arson.
4. C. They were done long after conviction and contradicted in-court testimony
   👉 The affidavits were made 15 years later and did not outweigh sworn court testimonies.
5. B. Fire was accidental
   👉 The Court found the fire was intentionally set, so this reason is invalid for downgrading the charge.
6. C. Mother
   👉 Deolina Perocho was the mother of the child victim, Leonardo Jr.
7. B. He had no witnesses or documents to support it
   👉 Dolendo’s alibi lacked corroborative proof and could not defeat the positive identification by witnesses.
8. C. The judge who decided the case was not the one who heard the evidence
   👉 The Court held that this does not invalidate the decision, as reliance on records is legally acceptable.
9. C. ₱75,000
   👉 The Supreme Court affirmed ₱75,000 in moral damages awarded to the victim’s heirs.
10. C. Testimonies in open court under cross-examination are more credible than recantations
    👉 The Court gives more weight to courtroom testimonies than affidavits executed after trial.

 

From <https://chatgpt.com/g/g-ipZC0xKZ1-case-digest/c/66eeb683-bba8-800a-81dc-4b584ff5dde1>

 

Case  182 of 327

Case  183 of 327

Here are the answers with short explanations to the 10 HOTS multiple-choice questions based on People v. Espina, G.R. No. 219614, July 10, 2019:

 

1. C – The treacherous and sudden nature of the attack

➡️ Treachery was present as the attack was sudden and left the victim defenseless, qualifying the act as murder.

2. C – Employing a means of attack that prevents the victim from defending himself

➡️ Treachery exists when the method used ensures execution without risk from retaliation.

3. D – He was positively identified by eyewitnesses

➡️ The accused’s denial and alibi were overcome by clear, credible eyewitness testimony.

4. B – “Patay, buhay?”

➡️ This exact phrase was uttered by the accused before shooting the victim, proving intent and deliberation.

5. C – Conviction for murder affirmed with modifications

➡️ The Supreme Court upheld the murder conviction, modifying only the damages.

6. C – The victim died due to a deliberate act

➡️ Death resulting from a deliberate act presumes intent to kill.

7. B – ₱275,000 plus interest

➡️ The Supreme Court awarded ₱75,000 each for civil, moral, and exemplary damages, and ₱50,000 temperate damages.

8. C – It was a public document

➡️ A duly registered death certificate is admissible without further authentication.

9. B – Use of firearm

➡️ Though alleged, use of a firearm was not appreciated as an aggravating circumstance due to lack of evidence.

10. C – Estoppel

➡️ A party is barred from changing theory on appeal if it was not raised in the lower court, to ensure fairness.

 

✅ Review your score and revisit the case to master the doctrines of intent to kill and treachery — vital for every criminal law student!

 

From <https://chatgpt.com/g/g-ipZC0xKZ1-case-digest/c/66eeb716-538c-800a-ae0e-f2f1ac71964a>

 

Case  184 of 327

Case  185 of 327

Case  186 of 327

✅ ANSWER KEY WITH EXPLANATIONS

1. C. Homicide

🔹 The Supreme Court downgraded the conviction from murder to homicide because qualifying circumstances were not proven.

2. C. The attack was frontal and preceded by an argument

🔹 Treachery requires a sudden, unexpected attack; here, the victim had warning and even provoked the shooter.

3. B. No clear act showed that the threat was followed through

🔹 The Court held that the threat alone, without overt acts to show persistent intent, was insufficient for evident premeditation.

4. D. Their accounts were consistent, clear, and corroborated

🔹 Despite being family, their testimonies were credible and aligned with medical findings.

5. B. Alibi

🔹 One accused claimed he was elsewhere, supported by relatives, but this defense was not strong enough.

6. C. It did not show physical impossibility to be at the crime scene

🔹 The accused was only 500 meters away, making his alibi weak and unconvincing.

7. C. It confirmed that the cause of death aligned with the eyewitness testimony

🔹 The medico-legal findings matched the witness accounts, confirming the gunshot wound as fatal.

8. D. As failure to rebut the prosecution’s case

🔹 The absence of a defense from one accused left the prosecution’s evidence uncontested.

9. B. They acted together with shared intent before, during, and after the crime

🔹 Their coordinated actions indicated a common intent to kill, establishing conspiracy.

10. C. ₱150,000

🔹 The Supreme Court awarded ₱50,000 each in civil indemnity, moral damages, and temperate damages.

 

From <https://chatgpt.com/g/g-ipZC0xKZ1-case-digest/c/66eeb804-68f4-800a-b093-5adbba4762d1>

 

Case  187 of 327

Case  188 of 327

People of the Philippines vs. Edgardo Garcia y Ancheta
G.R. No. 230983 | Promulgated on September 4, 2019 

1. C – It ensures the integrity and identity of seized items

The chain of custody is vital to prove that the drug presented in court is the exact one seized from the accused.

2. D – Acquittal due to broken chain of custody

The Supreme Court acquitted Garcia because procedural lapses undermined the credibility of the seized evidence.

3. B – Delay in marking the seized drug

Immediate marking is required to avoid confusion or tampering of evidence, which the officers failed to do.

4. C – Weakens the prosecution's case

The absence of a DOJ representative during inventory violated the requirements for proper documentation and witness presence.

5. C – Presumption of regularity in official functions

This presumption was overturned due to clear and convincing proof of protocol breaches by the police.

6. B – One 1000-peso bill

The buy-bust operation used a marked Php1,000 bill, as specifically stated in the case facts.

7. C – There was no valid explanation for noncompliance

The saving clause applies only if lapses are justified, which was not proven in this case.

8. C – They convicted Garcia

Both lower courts convicted the accused before the Supreme Court reversed the ruling on appeal.

9. C – To prevent switching or tampering

Marking the seized drugs at the moment of confiscation ensures their traceability and authenticity.

10. C – Mishandling of inventory process and marking

The core error was in the delayed marking and improperly conducted inventory, which broke the chain of custody.

 

📌 Remember: Even minor lapses in procedure can mean the difference between conviction and acquittal in criminal cases involving drugs.

 

From <https://chatgpt.com/g/g-ipZC0xKZ1-case-digest/c/66eeb8ad-2d8c-800a-b638-d6887af6c976>

 

Case  189 of 327

Case  190 of 327

Case  191 of 327

Here are the answers to the quiz along with brief explanations for each:

 

1. C – Procedural lapses in handling evidence

👉 The Supreme Court acquitted the accused due to serious violations of the chain of custody rule, which cast doubt on the identity of the seized drugs.

 

2. C – It ensures the drugs presented are the same seized

👉 Chain of custody guarantees that the evidence in court is the exact same item taken from the accused, free from tampering.

 

3. C – It lacked sufficient proof and must be rejected

👉 The Court held that mere invocation of “security reasons” is not enough without factual justification.

 

4. A – Presence of a media representative

👉 Only a barangay official was present during inventory, violating the requirement for three witnesses.

 

5. C – It raises doubt on the integrity of evidence

👉 The absence of required witnesses undermines the reliability of the inventory process and evidence handling.

 

6. C – The prosecution failed to justify the lapses

👉 The saving clause applies only if the lapses are justified and the integrity of evidence is preserved, which was not done here.

 

7. B – It verifies if the drugs were stored and resealed properly

👉 The forensic chemist must affirm that the seized items were received, tested, resealed, and marked correctly.

 

8. C – Chain of custody must be strictly followed unless properly justified

👉 The Court ruled that strict adherence is mandatory unless valid, proven exceptions apply.

 

9. C – They require strict observance of safeguards

👉 Due to the harsh penalties under RA 9165, strict compliance with procedural safeguards is demanded.

 

10. C – They are fatal to the prosecution’s case if not explained

👉 Any unexplained break in the chain of custody renders the evidence unreliable and leads to acquittal.

 

Let us know how many you got right and don’t forget to save this for your bar prep! 💼📚

 

From <https://chatgpt.com/g/g-ipZC0xKZ1-case-digest/c/66eeb9d3-2178-800a-a6d3-aa9bc960bd0a>

 

Case  192 of 327

 People of the Philippines vs. Shager Lacdan y Parto🔹 G.R. No.: 232161

Here are the answers with brief explanations for each of the 10 HOTS multiple choice questions:

 

1. C – Breach in the handling of drug evidence

🔍 The Supreme Court acquitted the accused due to multiple, unjustified lapses in the chain of custody of the drug evidence.

2. C – A DOJ representative and an elected official

🔍 The physical inventory lacked the presence of these mandatory witnesses, violating procedural requirements.

3. D – It preserves the identity and integrity of the evidence

🔍 The rule ensures that the drugs presented in court are the same ones seized from the accused.

4. B – The presence of only one witness during inventory

🔍 The police failed to explain why only one of the three required witnesses was present during inventory.

5. C – It must be justified, or it may lead to acquittal

🔍 Non-compliance with procedural safeguards, if unjustified, undermines the prosecution’s case.

6. B – The name of the receiving clerk at the crime lab was not disclosed

🔍 This omission created a gap in the chain of custody, weakening the prosecution’s evidence handling.

7. B – It rendered the evidence inadmissible

🔍 The lack of testimony from the receiving clerk meant no assurance that the drug tested was the same as the one seized.

8. C – It cannot override clear violations of required procedures

🔍 The Court emphasized that the presumption of regularity cannot cure evident breaches in evidence handling.

9. C – The accused must be acquitted

🔍 Doubt on the integrity of the drug evidence is fatal to the prosecution’s case.

10. C – The unbroken chain of custody

🔍 The entire case hinges on proving the continuous and secure handling of the seized drug evidence.

 

Let me know if you'd like these formatted for visual content or presentation slides!

 

From <https://chatgpt.com/g/g-ipZC0xKZ1-case-digest/c/66eeba25-7758-800a-a7a5-6e1b4aad3884>

 

Case  193 of 327

Here are the answers with short explanations for each of the multiple-choice questions:

 

1. C – The chain of custody rule was violated

🔍 The Supreme Court acquitted the accused due to multiple, unjustified breaches in the chain of custody of the seized drugs.

 

2. C – He kept them in his left and right pockets

👖 The officer placed the sachets in his own pockets, a handling method the Court found suspicious and improper.

 

3. C – To prevent allegations of evidence planting

🕵️‍♂️ Required witnesses serve as safeguards to ensure transparency and authenticity of seized evidence.

 

4. C – It requires justification if not done at the site

📸 The law allows inventory at other locations only if a valid reason for not doing it at the scene is shown.

 

5. C – Testimony on the handover to investigating officer

🔗 The prosecution failed to establish who received the evidence after initial seizure, breaking the chain of custody.

 

6. C – Taking steps to preserve integrity of evidence

🧪 The chemist’s handling, sealing, and marking of the evidence were not properly stipulated or explained.

 

7. C – Because the items were kept in his own pockets

🚫 This method of bodily-keeping evidence was criticized by the Court as reckless and unreliable.

 

8. C – It may lead to acquittal due to reasonable doubt

⚖️ Any unjustified procedural error weakens the evidence and may result in acquittal for lack of proof beyond reasonable doubt.

 

9. B – In flagrante delicto or warrantless seizure

🚨 The arrest and seizure occurred during a buy-bust operation, which is a form of warrantless arrest.

 

10. C – Comply strictly with custody procedures and document all links

📋 The Court emphasized the need to follow and document every step of the chain of custody to ensure admissibility of evidence.

 

 

Case  194 of 327

📘 ANSWER KEY with EXPLANATIONS

Based on People of the Philippines vs. Leonardo Macalindong y Andallon, G.R. No. 248202, October 13, 2021

 

1. B. Lack of clear proof of qualifying circumstances
   👉 The Supreme Court held that neither treachery nor abuse of superior strength was proven beyond reasonable doubt, thus reducing the crime to homicide.
2. C. Insanity
   👉 The accused invoked insanity, claiming he was suffering from schizophrenia at the time of the killing.
3. D. The accused’s minor daughter
   👉 The 7-year-old daughter, Lyn Joy, witnessed the crime and gave credible, positive testimony identifying her father as the assailant.
4. C. No expert testified about the accused’s mental state during the crime
   👉 The insanity defense failed because there was no competent psychiatric testimony proving the accused’s mental condition at the time of the incident.
5. C. In the same room as her parents
   👉 Lyn Joy testified that she was in the room and saw her father stab her mother multiple times.
6. C. Twenty-two
   👉 According to the daughter’s testimony and later confirmed by relatives, the victim was stabbed 22 times.
7. B. The attack was not premeditated
   👉 The Court ruled that the attack occurred during a heated quarrel and was not a conscious exploitation of superior strength.
8. C. The attack was impulsive and not deliberately planned
   👉 The Court emphasized that suddenness alone does not amount to treachery without evidence of deliberate planning.
9. C. Weak compared to a positive identification
   👉 The Court reiterated that a mere denial cannot overcome a credible and categorical eyewitness identification.
10. D. From the finality of judgment
    👉 Interest on unliquidated damages begins to run only from the date the judgment becomes final, per Nacar v. Gallery Frames.

 

 

Case  195 of 327

Here is the Answer Key with brief explanations for each question:

 

1. C – Movement of drugs from one place to another
➡️ The Court held that actual movement, even within the same premises, is sufficient to constitute transportation.

2. D – From the baggage counter of a shopping mall
➡️ The accused retrieved the box containing the drugs from the SM Hypermarket baggage counter.

3. B – Any form of movement is sufficient
➡️ The law does not require the drugs to be transported a specific distance; any actual conveyance suffices.

4. C – Because they never left the mall premises
➡️ The defense claimed that transportation wasn't consummated since they didn’t exit the mall complex.

5. C – Presumption of transport intent
➡️ Possession of a large amount of illegal drugs raises a presumption of intent to transport.

6. C – The driver attempted to run over the agents
➡️ The driver tried to hit the NBI agents with the vehicle, prompting them to open fire.

7. C – That they were merely meeting someone for a car deal
➡️ The accused claimed they only went to SM MOA to meet a car buyer, not to transport drugs.

8. C – Both parties stipulated the findings
➡️ The forensic chemist's live testimony was waived by stipulation of both the prosecution and defense.

9. C – Presumed regular unless shown otherwise
➡️ Law enforcers' testimonies are given weight and presumed regular in the absence of contrary evidence.

10. B – Life imprisonment and ₱500,000 fine
➡️ The penalty under the law for transporting a dangerous drug, regardless of distance, includes life imprisonment and a hefty fine.

 

Case  196 of 327

✅ ANSWER KEY WITH SHORT EXPLANATIONS:

1. C. Constructive possession

→ The Court ruled that the accused had control over the premises, making him constructively in possession of the drugs.

2. D. Because it was part of the described rented premises

→ The warrant covered the "rented residence and its premises," which the Court interpreted to include the attached store.

3. B. It was considered a waiver of the objection

→ Failure to question the search warrant's validity during trial is deemed a waiver of such objection.

4. C. They were binding since they were made with counsel and voluntarily

→ The Court held that the accused’s counter-affidavits were admissible because they were made knowingly, voluntarily, and with legal assistance.

5. C. He claimed he was only a user, not a seller

→ The accused admitted drug use but denied intent to sell, which the Court did not accept as a defense to possession.

6. C. It held the description was sufficient as the store was part of the rented residence

→ The Court found that the description in the warrant reasonably covered both the house and the store.

7. C. She was present but not charged, and he claimed the drugs belonged to her ex-husband

→ The accused attempted to shift the blame to his girlfriend's ex-husband, but the Court was not persuaded.

8. B. His admission in notarized affidavits about the drugs

→ His own judicial admissions, made with counsel, were key to proving his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

9. C. 20 to 30 years imprisonment and a P500,000 fine

→ The trial and appellate courts, as affirmed by the Supreme Court, imposed this penalty due to the quantity of marijuana.

10. C. They are sufficient if they allow officers to identify the place with reasonable effort

→ The constitutional requirement is met if the place can be reasonably located and identified by the executing officers.

 

From <https://chatgpt.com/c/66eebb42-ae6c-800a-8fcb-4ef8af71d5bf>

 

Case  197 of 327

✅ Answer Key with Explanations

1. b. Approving a plea deal without prosecutor's consent
   ➤ The Supreme Court held that plea bargaining in drug cases is invalid without the prosecutor’s consent.
2. c. Sale of dangerous drugs
   ➤ The original charge in Criminal Case No. 2016-0774 involved selling shabu, a graver offense under the law.
3. c. It was filed within the proper period
   ➤ The Supreme Court found that the petition for certiorari was filed on time, contrary to the CA's conclusion.
4. c. Prosecutor
   ➤ Only the prosecutor’s consent is required in plea bargaining for drug cases where there is no private offended party.
5. c. One to two years and a fine
   ➤ For Criminal Case No. 2016-0775, both accused were sentenced to 1–2 years in prison and ₱20,000 fine.
6. b. DOJ Circulars on plea bargaining
   ➤ The trial court wrongly declared DOJ Circular No. 027 unconstitutional; the Supreme Court upheld its validity.
7. c. Prosecutor’s consent
   ➤ The ruling emphasized that plea bargaining cannot proceed without the prosecutor’s agreement.
8. b. It has no legal effect
   ➤ A plea bargain without prosecutor consent is void, making any resulting conviction invalid.
9. c. Retrial
   ➤ The Supreme Court ordered a remand and retrial of Criminal Case No. 2016-0774 due to the invalid plea.
10. b. Judicial declarations of unconstitutionality require specific requisites
    ➤ The Court ruled the trial court erred in declaring a DOJ Circular unconstitutional sua sponte, lacking proper requisites.

 

From <https://chatgpt.com/g/g-ipZC0xKZ1-case-digest/c/66eebb8c-5c9c-800a-aa33-85553f59e435>

 

Case  198 of 327

Here are the correct answers to the quiz, each with a short explanation to reinforce your understanding of the case:

 

1. C. Robbery with Homicide

➡️ The charge against Jay Godoy Mancao was robbery with homicide because the killing occurred by reason or on the occasion of the robbery.

 

2. C. Texting while waiting for a jeepney

➡️ Eyewitness Manuel Bernido Jr. saw the victim texting at a roadside when the accused approached and stabbed him.

 

3. C. The victim’s silver necklace

➡️ The silver necklace belonging to the victim was found in the accused’s possession upon his arrest, leading to the application of the legal presumption.

 

4. D. It failed to overcome circumstantial evidence

➡️ The Supreme Court ruled that his uncorroborated alibi could not outweigh the strong circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution.

 

5. C. Whether circumstantial evidence can lead to conviction

➡️ The central issue was whether the conviction could stand despite the absence of direct evidence of the robbery.

 

6. C. Presumption from possession of stolen property

➡️ Under Rule 131, Section 3(j) of the Rules of Court, possession of recently stolen property raises a presumption that the possessor is the thief.

 

7. C. Reclusion perpetua

➡️ The trial court, CA, and SC all imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua, which is appropriate for robbery with homicide when no aggravating circumstances are present.

 

8. D. Manuel Bernido Jr.

➡️ He was the key eyewitness who saw the accused stab the victim in the neck from a short distance.

 

9. D. A dipper with water

➡️ Witnesses testified that the accused returned to the scene carrying a dipper, which he used to wash off blood stains.

 

10. C. By following a trail of blood

➡️ The police followed blood traces from the crime scene to the accused’s boarding house, helping them locate him.

 

✅ These questions reinforce not only factual recall but also legal reasoning based on Criminal Law principles and rules on evidence.

 

From <https://chatgpt.com/g/g-ipZC0xKZ1-case-digest/c/66eebc5d-cab0-800a-8add-3882b938f7b6>

 

Case  199 of 327

 Here are the answers with short explanations for each of the 10 HOTS questions:

1. C. There were multiple breaks in the chain of custody
   ➤ The Supreme Court acquitted the accused due to serious and unjustified lapses in handling the evidence.
2. C. Buy-bust operation
   ➤ The accused was apprehended through a planned buy-bust operation involving a poseur buyer and marked money.
3. B. Marking of the seized item at the scene
   ➤ The drug item was not marked immediately at the place of arrest, violating key procedural rules.
4. C. ₱200
   ➤ The operation used two ₱100 bills marked with ultraviolet powder as buy-bust money.
5. B. The prosecution failed to justify non-compliance with required procedures
   ➤ The Court held that failure to follow the required chain of custody cannot be cured by mere presumption of regularity.
6. C. 0.01 gram
   ➤ The plastic sachet allegedly seized contained only 0.01 gram of methamphetamine hydrochloride.
7. C. A DOJ representative
   ➤ The inventory of the seized drug was conducted without the mandatory presence of a DOJ representative.
8. C. Strict compliance is essential due to severe penalties
   ➤ The Court stressed that strict adherence to rules is necessary because of the harsh consequences of a drug conviction.
9. C. Chain of custody rule
   ➤ The central doctrine emphasized was the need to maintain an unbroken chain of custody to preserve the integrity of the evidence.
10. C. Immediate release unless held for another lawful cause
    ➤ The Supreme Court ordered the immediate release of the accused due to his acquittal.

 

From <https://chatgpt.com/g/g-ipZC0xKZ1-case-digest/c/66eebcd3-90c4-800a-b138-8b6506c9167f>

 

Case  200 of 327

Here are the answers with brief explanations for each of the multiple-choice questions:

 

1. B. They recruited workers for South Korea without a license.
   👉 Illegal recruitment is committed when a person recruits others for overseas work without a valid license or authority from the POEA, as in the case of Marzan and Dulay.
2. C. The recruitment involved three or more victims.
   👉 Illegal recruitment in large scale is defined as illegal recruitment committed against three or more persons, whether individually or as a group.
3. A. The accused misrepresented themselves and collected fees without fulfilling their promises.
   👉 Estafa was committed through false pretenses—the accused deceived victims into paying fees for fake jobs abroad.
4. C. Confession of guilt by the accused
   👉 The accused did not confess; in fact, they denied involvement. The convictions were based on strong testimonial and documentary evidence, not admission.
5. C. It could not stand against credible and positive testimonies.
   👉 The Supreme Court ruled that denial is a weak defense, especially when there are multiple credible testimonies from the complainants.
6. C. They confirmed with DOLE and POEA that the accused were unauthorized recruiters.
   👉 Many victims inquired with DOLE/POEA and discovered that the accused had no license, prompting them to file complaints.
7. C. The court convicted them for all the offenses charged and proven.
   👉 Although there was duplicity of offenses, the accused did not object before trial. Hence, they were deemed to have waived the defect, allowing conviction for all proven offenses.
8. C. Filed a complaint at the NBI
   👉 The complainants went to the NBI after realizing they were scammed. The NBI then referred the case to the proper court.
9. C. Direct testimonies of the victims about meetings and payments
   👉 The Court relied heavily on the positive, consistent, and categorical testimonies of victims who described how they were recruited and how payments were made.
10. B. Life imprisonment
    👉 Under RA 8042, illegal recruitment in large scale by a non-licensee is punishable by life imprisonment and a fine of up to ₱2 million.

 

From <https://chatgpt.com/g/g-ipZC0xKZ1-case-digest/c/66eebda3-5b50-800a-9485-79887e560ee1>

 

Case  201 of 327

Case  202 of 327

Case  203 of 327

Philippines vs. Corazon Nazareno y Fernandez @ “Cora” and Jefferson Nazareno y Fernandez @ “Toto”, G.R. No. 231875, promulgated on July 29, 2019.

a.     C. There was non-compliance with required procedural safeguards during inventory
👉 The Supreme Court acquitted the accused because the inventory lacked mandatory witnesses without any justification.

b.     C. The chain of custody
👉 The chain of custody ensures the identity and integrity of the drug from seizure to court presentation.

c.      B. The presence of media and DOJ representatives
👉 Their absence without explanation violated the required three-witness rule under the law.

d.     C. There was no justification for non-compliance with witness requirements
👉 The prosecution did not prove any valid reason for failing to present the mandatory witnesses.

e.     C. Both convicted the accused
👉 The RTC and CA both convicted the accused before the Supreme Court reversed the rulings.

f.       C. P300
👉 The buy-bust transaction involved P300, used by the poseur-buyer to purchase shabu.

g.     C. Integrity of the evidence
👉 The Supreme Court stressed that lapses in safeguarding the integrity of seized drugs render the evidence unreliable.

h.     C. It invalidated the prosecution’s evidence
👉 The absence of required witnesses created serious doubt on the legitimacy of the seized drugs.

i.       C. The presumption of regularity
👉 This presumption cannot cure substantial lapses in compliance with legal safeguards.

j.       D. Acquittal and release from detention
👉 The Court ordered the immediate release of the accused due to failure of the prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

 

Case  204 of 327

Case  205 of 327

People of the Philippines vs. Mike Omamos y Pajo, G.R. No. 223036, promulgated on July 10, 2019.

Here are the answers to the quiz questions with short explanations for each:

1. B. Chain of custody
   👉 This ensures the identity and integrity of the seized drug is preserved from the time of confiscation to presentation in court.
2. C. There was a failure to follow proper chain of custody procedures
   👉 The Supreme Court acquitted Omamos because the handling of evidence did not comply with mandated procedures, causing doubt on its integrity.
3. C. No immediate marking of the seized drug at the place of arrest
   👉 The drug was only marked later at the police station, violating the requirement for immediate marking in the presence of the accused.
4. B. It raised doubt on the identity of the evidence
   👉 The Court emphasized that without inventory and photographs, it cannot be certain that the evidence presented was the same item seized.
5. C. The prosecution fails to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt
   👉 If the evidence’s integrity is doubtful, the element of the crime is unproven, warranting acquittal.
6. C. To testify how the drug was handled and analyzed
   👉 A forensic chemist must detail the handling and method of analysis to ensure the evidence’s integrity.
7. B. Presence of media and DOJ representative
   👉 Required witnesses during inventory and photographing were missing, weakening the reliability of the evidence.
8. B. Can be disregarded when official procedure is violated
   👉 Presumption of regularity cannot prevail when procedural safeguards are breached.
9. C. When the prosecution fails to prove the drug's identity beyond reasonable doubt
   👉 If there's reasonable doubt on whether the drug presented is the one allegedly seized, acquittal follows.
10. C. As a fatal flaw leading to acquittal
    👉 The Supreme Court ruled that the multiple lapses in evidence handling warranted the reversal of conviction.

 

Case  206 of 327

Here are the answers with brief explanations for the 10 multiple-choice questions based on People v. Padal Jr., et al., G.R. No. 232070, October 2, 2019:

1. C. Accused acted in coordination to ensure the success of the crime
   ➤ Conspiracy exists when accused perform acts showing a common intent and coordination before, during, and after the crime.
2. C. It helped in facilitating the crime and escape
   ➤ The motorcycle allowed the accused to chase, trap, and later flee from the scene, qualifying the crime as murder.
3. B. It was not alleged in the charge
   ➤ Treachery, although argued, was not appreciated because it was not expressly alleged in the information.
4. C. It failed to show physical impossibility of being at the crime scene
   ➤ Alibi is weak unless it proves that it was physically impossible for the accused to be at the place of the crime.
5. C. Act of one is the act of all
   ➤ In conspiracy, each conspirator is equally liable for the crime, even if only one directly committed the act.
6. C. They had no ill motive and consistently identified the accused
   ➤ The Court gave weight to credible eyewitnesses who had no motive to lie and were firm in their identification.
7. C. Temperate
   ➤ When actual damages are proven but insufficiently supported by receipts, temperate damages may be awarded instead.
8. C. It was a qualifying circumstance for murder
   ➤ The use of a motor vehicle is a recognized circumstance that elevates homicide to murder under jurisprudence.
9. C. Right to be informed of the nature of the accusation
   ➤ Accused cannot be convicted of a circumstance (like treachery) not stated in the information, per constitutional due process.
10. C. Reclusion perpetua
    ➤ The Supreme Court affirmed the penalty of reclusion perpetua due to the qualifying circumstance of motor vehicle use.

 

Case  207 of 327

Here are the answers with brief explanations for each of the 10 HOTS multiple choice questions based on People of the Philippines vs. Jose Batulan y Macajilos, G.R. No. 216936, July 29, 2019:

 

1. C – Conspiracy

🔹 Batulan was held equally liable because he acted in concert with his co-accused, establishing implied conspiracy.

2. B – The attack lacked deliberate planning to prevent retaliation

🔹 Treachery was not appreciated since there was no proof that the means of attack was consciously chosen to eliminate any risk from the victim.

3. D – A blood-stained Batangas knife in his possession

🔹 Police caught Batulan fleeing with a bloodied knife, which was later identified as one of the weapons used.

4. C – They were jeepney barkers in the area

🔹 All accused knew each other and worked as dispatchers in the area, supporting the finding of conspiracy.

5. C – Superior strength

🔹 The group used their number and weapons to overpower the victim, which qualified the crime to murder.

6. C – Their testimonies were made in open court and cross-examined

🔹 Res inter alios acta does not apply to in-court testimonies subjected to cross-examination.

7. B – Reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole

🔹 The penalty for murder without aggravating circumstances is reclusion perpetua.

8. D – Actual damages

🔹 Actual damages were denied due to lack of receipts; temperate damages were awarded instead.

9. C – He arrested Batulan holding a bloodied weapon

🔹 The officer’s testimony placed Batulan at the crime scene with the murder weapon, strengthening the prosecution’s case.

10. C – Funeral expenses were not sufficiently proven

🔹 The Court substituted actual damages with temperate damages due to the absence of proof of funeral expenses.

 

Case  208 of 327

Case  209 of 327

Here are the answers with brief explanations to the 10 HOTS multiple choice questions based on People v. Pigar, G.R. No. 247658, February 17, 2020:

 

1. D. The abuse of superior strength

🔹 The Court ruled that the group’s overwhelming force against a frail victim was the key qualifying circumstance that elevated the killing to murder.

2. C. Normal and not necessarily fatal to credibility

🔹 Minor inconsistencies do not affect the credibility of witnesses when their testimonies are consistent on material points.

3. B. Rejected due to physical proximity to the crime scene

🔹 The accused’s alibi failed because he was near the scene, making it possible for him to be present during the crime.

4. B. It overcomes denial and alibi

🔹 Positive identification by credible eyewitnesses prevails over mere denials or unsubstantiated alibis.

5. C. They were equally liable under conspiracy

🔹 The Court emphasized that in a conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all, regardless of who delivered the fatal blow.

6. B. Dwelling

🔹 Although the crime occurred in the victim's home, “dwelling” could not be appreciated since it was not specifically alleged in the Information.

7. C. The number of assailants made the claim unbelievable

🔹 The claim of self-defense was negated by the fact that multiple armed attackers assaulted an elderly man.

8. B. Reactions are unpredictable

🔹 The Court acknowledged that people react differently under trauma and fear, and there’s no standard behavior in such situations.

9. C. Their testimonies were consistent on material points

🔹 Despite some minor inconsistencies, the key facts and identifications in their statements remained clear and reliable.

10. B. Reclusion perpetua with damages

🔹 The Supreme Court imposed reclusion perpetua with modified monetary damages to the victim's heirs.

 

✅ End of quizzer! Keep studying smart and reviewing these key doctrines!

 

From <https://chatgpt.com/c/66eec0ad-c730-800a-a2b9-e720b2508ea2>

 

Case  210 of 327

Here are the answers with short explanations for each of the 10 multiple choice questions based on People v. Posos & Grezola, G.R. No. 226492, October 2, 2019:

 

1. B. Payment for the drugs was never delivered
   🔍 No money was handed over, thus the drug sale was not consummated — an essential element was missing.
2. C. Representatives from DOJ and media
   🔍 The absence of these required witnesses during inventory breached the chain of custody rule.
3. C. It insulates against evidence tampering
   🔍 The presence of official witnesses helps ensure the integrity of seized evidence.
4. C. Delivering the payment
   🔍 The poseur-buyer never gave the buy-bust money to the accused, undermining the alleged sale.
5. B. Receipt of payment by the seller
   🔍 Without the seller receiving payment, no actual sale of drugs occurred.
6. C. Having only one witness present
   🔍 Only a barangay official was present, violating the rule that requires at least three key witnesses.
7. B. The operation was planned in advance
   🔍 Since the buy-bust was pre-arranged, the team had enough time to secure all required witnesses.
8. A. Delay in marking the evidence
   🔍 The sachet was marked only at the PDEA office and not at the place of arrest, affecting credibility.
9. B. Presumption of innocence in light of procedural breaches
   🔍 The Court ruled in favor of the accused due to unexcused non-compliance with legal safeguards.
10. C. Every link in the handling must be established
    🔍 The Court emphasized that all stages from seizure to court must be proven to preserve evidence integrity.

 

From <https://chatgpt.com/g/g-ipZC0xKZ1-case-digest/c/66eec0ed-d948-800a-b772-3446a9f445ef>

 

Case  211 of 327

People of the Philippines vs. Allan Quijano y Sanding, G.R. No. 247558, promulgated on February 19, 2020

Here are the answers with short explanations for each of the 10 HOTS multiple choice questions:

 

1. C – Absence of intent to possess

Quijano claimed he had no animus possidendi, arguing he was merely holding the bag for someone else without knowledge of its contents.

2. C – He hesitated when summoned and tried to return the bag

His suspicious behavior—hesitation and attempt to return the bag—triggered the inspection that led to the discovery of drugs.

3. C – When the drugs are under one’s control even if not physically held

Constructive possession includes situations where the accused has control or dominion over the illegal drugs, even if not holding them directly.

4. B – 735.8 grams

The confiscated methamphetamine hydrochloride weighed 735.8 grams, as stated in the chemistry report.

5. C – As indicative of guilty knowledge

The Court interpreted his refusal to surrender the bag as evidence of knowing possession and intent to hide the drugs.

6. C – His actions showed dominion and control over the bag

The Court ruled that his behavior, including accepting and attempting to return the bag, indicated possession with intent.

7. D – The conviction was affirmed

The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the RTC and CA, finding Quijano guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

8. C – Life imprisonment and ₱500,000 fine

In accordance with the law on possession of over 50 grams of shabu, he was sentenced to life imprisonment and fined ₱500,000.

9. B – The scale used in court was unstable

The forensic chemist explained that the court’s weighing scale was less accurate than the laboratory’s, accounting for the weight discrepancy.

10. C – Intent to possess is presumed from the act of possession

The Court reiterated that animus possidendi is presumed when a person is caught with illegal drugs unless adequately rebutted.

 

✔️ Great job reviewing! These principles are essential for your Criminal Law mastery and Bar prep.

 

From <https://chatgpt.com/c/66eec131-bc24-800a-a0af-ef22c2d57559>

 

Case  212 of 327

Case  213 of 327

Here are the answers with brief explanations for each of the 10 multiple choice questions based on People v. Raymundo Rapiz y Correa, G.R. No. 240662, September 16, 2020:

 

1. ✅ C – The complainant’s testimony failed to meet the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt.

➡️ The Supreme Court emphasized that her story was inconsistent and unconvincing to justify a criminal conviction.

 

2. ✅ C – That a lone testimony must be credible and consistent to warrant conviction.

➡️ The Court ruled that even a single testimony must pass strict standards of credibility and logical coherence.

 

3. ✅ B – She failed to describe or identify the alleged weapon used to threaten her.

➡️ The lack of details about the weapon weakened her credibility and the prosecution’s case.

 

4. ✅ B – Her voluntary outings with the accused after the incident.

➡️ Her continued interactions with the accused were deemed inconsistent with the behavior of a rape victim.

 

5. ✅ C – Because the accused was not within the legally required degree of relationship.

➡️ The Court held that moral ascendancy does not apply since the accused was not a close relative (not within the third degree).

 

6. ✅ B – That the threat may have been fabricated.

➡️ The unexplained disappearance of the "weapon" from the narrative led the Court to doubt its existence.

 

7. ✅ B – Regional Trial Court.

➡️ The RTC originally convicted the accused and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua.

 

8. ✅ C – She thought he was her uncle and feared him.

➡️ This was her explanation for complying with the accused’s request to meet, although the Court found it unpersuasive.

 

9. ✅ C – It was inconsistent with her claim of threat or fear.

➡️ Her complete passivity and lack of resistance were viewed as unreasonable under the circumstances.

 

10. ✅ C – Must withstand scrutiny and align with human behavior.

➡️ The Court reiterated that credibility includes whether testimony is believable and consistent with real-life reactions.

 

📌 Disclaimer: These answers are for educational purposes only. They were generated using premium AI tools and are not infallible. Always consult the official Supreme Court ruling for complete legal understanding.

 

 

Case  214 of 327

Here are the answers with brief explanations for the 10 multiple choice questions based on People v. Reyes, G.R. No. 227013, June 17, 2019:

1. B. Homicide
   👉 The Supreme Court ruled that treachery was not proven, so the conviction was downgraded from murder to homicide.
2. B. Because treachery was not proven
   👉 The Court found the attack was spontaneous, giving the victim a chance to escape, thus lacking the element of treachery.
3. C. Conspiracy
   👉 In conspiracy, all who act with shared intent are equally liable, even if not all perform the final act.
4. C. The attack was spontaneous and unplanned
   👉 There was no evidence of premeditation; the attack happened suddenly when they saw the victim return.
5. C. They actively pursued and attacked the victim
   👉 Testimonies showed the accused chased, hit, and cornered the victim during the assault.
6. B. Treachery
   👉 The lower courts wrongly appreciated treachery when there was no deliberate plan to ensure the victim’s defenselessness.
7. C. They are equally liable regardless of who dealt the fatal injury
   👉 Under the conspiracy doctrine, liability is shared equally among those with a common criminal purpose.
8. D. Indeterminate sentence from prision mayor to reclusion temporal
   👉 The penalty for homicide, applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, is within this range.
9. B. Civil, moral, and temperate damages
   👉 The Court awarded ₱50,000 each in civil and moral damages, ₱28,266.15 actual, and ₱300,000 temperate damages.
10. A. Prior agreement in writing
    👉 A written agreement is not required; conspiracy may be inferred from coordinated actions and shared intent.

 

From <https://chatgpt.com/c/66f00b96-20c0-800a-b951-46094d1af442>

 

Case  215 of 327

People of the Philippines vs. Noel Sabater y Ulan, G.R. No. 249459, promulgated on June 14, 2021.

1. C. Consent of both the prosecutor and the accused
➡ Plea bargaining is only valid if both the prosecutor and the accused consent, as required by court rules.

2. C. When the court approves a plea bargain without jurisdiction
➡ A judgment is void if issued with grave abuse of discretion, such as when a court acts without jurisdiction.

3. C. The validity of a plea bargain without the prosecutor’s consent
➡ The core issue was whether a judge can approve a plea even if the prosecutor opposes it.

4. D. Sale of illegal drugs
➡ Sabater was charged with selling shabu, a violation of Section 5 of R.A. 9165.

5. B. The petition was not actually late based on proper reckoning
➡ The SC ruled that the filing was timely when computed from receipt of the judgment, not the interlocutory order.

6. C. Plea bargains must be consensual between court and prosecution
➡ The SC emphasized that mutual agreement is essential in any plea bargain.

7. D. Void and without legal effect
➡ Judgments issued with grave abuse of discretion are considered void and produce no legal consequence.

8. C. Six months and one day to four years imprisonment
➡ After pleading guilty to a lesser offense, Sabater was sentenced to indeterminate imprisonment.

9. C. It is a valid guideline for prosecutors
➡ The DOJ Circular was upheld as a non-binding internal guideline, not a violation of judicial rule-making.

10. C. The resulting judgment is void
➡ If the plea is for an offense not included in the original charge, any conviction based on it is void.

Case  216 of 327

Here are the answers with short explanations to the 10 HOTS multiple choice questions based on People v. Salmeron y Amaro and Estrada, G.R. No. 246477, October 2, 2019:

 

1. C – Procedural lapses in handling the seized drugs

➡️ The Supreme Court found fatal gaps in the chain of custody, particularly the absence of required witnesses.

2. C – Representatives from DOJ and the media

➡️ The police failed to secure the presence of DOJ and media representatives during the inventory, as mandated.

3. B – To witness and insulate the evidence from tampering

➡️ These witnesses serve to validate the integrity of the seized drugs and prevent evidence planting or alteration.

4. C – Methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu)

➡️ The item allegedly sold during the buy-bust was 2.92 grams of shabu.

5. C – ₱15,000

➡️ The poseur-buyer used ₱15,000 in marked money to purchase the drugs from the accused.

6. C – The reason for the absence of required inventory witnesses

➡️ The police gave no justifiable explanation for failing to follow the witness requirement during the inventory.

7. B – It could not overcome the clear violations of procedure

➡️ The presumption of regularity cannot prevail when the chain of custody rule is clearly violated.

8. C – By complying with the procedural chain of custody

➡️ The chain of custody ensures that the drug evidence is preserved from seizure to presentation in court.

9. C – They are fatal to the prosecution’s case

➡️ Unjustified lapses in the chain of custody compromise the integrity of the corpus delicti.

10. D – Acquit the accused due to procedural violations

➡️ The Supreme Court reversed the conviction and acquitted the accused for failure to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

 

From <https://chatgpt.com/c/66f00c3b-d518-800a-8823-5c7736839782>

 

Case  217 of 327

People of the Philippines vs. Marcelino Saltarin y Talosig,,G.R. No. 223715, promulgated on June 3, 2019.

Here are the answers to the quizzer along with short explanations for each:

 

1. ✅ C. The attack was treacherous and left the victim defenseless

The Supreme Court ruled that the sudden and calculated stabbing constituted treachery.

 

2. ✅ B. When the victim had no time to defend himself from a sudden attack

Treachery requires that the means of attack ensured the offender’s safety and eliminated risk from retaliation.

 

3. ✅ B. There was no proof of planning or reflection before the killing

Evident premeditation was not appreciated due to lack of evidence of prior intent or time for reflection.

 

4. ✅ C. A 15-year-old boy who witnessed the stabbing

Gerry Narido, the victim’s young companion, witnessed the stabbing and testified in court.

 

5. ✅ D. Reclusion perpetua

The Supreme Court imposed reclusion perpetua as the proper penalty for murder without any aggravating circumstance.

 

6. ✅ C. His testimony was consistent and corroborated by physical evidence

Despite his age, the Court found the witness credible due to his consistent and direct account.

 

7. ✅ C. The crime occurred at night and visibility was allegedly poor

The defense questioned visibility at the scene, but the Court found the identification reliable.

 

8. ✅ B. Sitting beside the witness inside a vehicle

The victim was seated inside a kuliglig next to the witness when he was attacked.

 

9. ✅ C. Nominal damages

The Court awarded actual, civil, moral, and exemplary damages—but not nominal damages.

 

10. ✅ C. ₱75,000

The Supreme Court increased the award for exemplary damages to ₱75,000 in line with current jurisprudence.

 

🎓 Now you’ve completed the quizzer—well done, future attorney!

📢 Don’t forget to like, share, and comment to help others preparing for the bar!

 

 

Case  218 of 327

People of the Philippines vs. Raul Y. Desembrana, G.R. Nos. 233061-62, promulgated on July 28, 2020. 

---

1. C – Protection against oppressive and unreasonable legal delays
✔ The right to speedy disposition aims to shield individuals from prolonged and unjust legal proceedings.

2. A – The educational background of the accused
✔ The balancing test does not consider irrelevant personal factors like education; it focuses on legal and procedural aspects.

3. C – The prosecution
✔ Once delay is prima facie inordinate and the right is invoked, the burden shifts to the prosecution to justify the delay.

4. C – The delay was justified and not solely the prosecution's fault
✔ The Supreme Court found that the accused also contributed to the delay and the prosecution acted within reasonable bounds.

5. B – Motion for reconsideration of Ombudsman’s resolution
✔ Under Ombudsman rules, once the case is in court, a motion for reconsideration requires leave of court.

6. C – The Sandiganbayan
✔ After an Information is filed, jurisdiction and control over the case belong to the Sandiganbayan.

7. D – They may be considered in evaluating delay
✔ The Court emphasized that delay caused by the accused’s own pleadings may be factored in the balancing test.

8. C – Includes anxiety, public stigma, or impaired defense
✔ Prejudice is not limited to imprisonment; it covers emotional, social, and legal consequences.

9. B – It had been overturned due to amendments
✔ The Court ruled that the Sales doctrine was no longer controlling due to updated procedural rules.

10. C – Direct the OSP to resolve it within a set period
✔ The Court said that the Sandiganbayan should have required the OSP to resolve the motion within a reasonable time, not halt proceedings indefinitely.

Case  219 of 327

People of the Philippines vs. Elmar Santos y Del Carmen, G.R. No. 229658, promulgated on August 28, 2019.

Here are the answers to the 10 HOTS multiple choice questions above, along with short explanations for each:

 

1. C. Whether the witness’ out-of-court identification was reliable

🟢 Explanation: The main issue was the reliability of the victim’s identification of the accused based on a photo lineup, which was challenged as suggestive.

 

2. B. Using the Totality of Circumstances Test

🟢 Explanation: The Supreme Court applied the "Totality of Circumstances Test" to assess the credibility and reliability of the victim’s identification.

 

3. C. Reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole

🟢 Explanation: The Court imposed reclusion perpetua without parole under the penalty for kidnapping for ransom as modified by relevant laws.

 

4. C. The victim spent extended time with the accused

🟢 Explanation: The Court emphasized that the victim had sufficient opportunity to observe the accused during the prolonged captivity, strengthening his identification.

 

5. C. Civil, moral, and exemplary damages

🟢 Explanation: The Supreme Court awarded the victim ₱100,000 each for civil, moral, and exemplary damages, following jurisprudence.

 

6. C. Suggestiveness of the police lineup

🟢 Explanation: The Court rejected the claim that the lineup was suggestive; no evidence showed undue influence in the identification process.

 

7. B. The identification was suggestive and unreliable

🟢 Explanation: The defense argued that the victim’s identification was not trustworthy because it was supposedly made under suggestive conditions.

 

8. C. It found it categorical and credible

🟢 Explanation: The trial court considered the victim's testimony to be consistent, detailed, and convincing, giving it full probative value.

 

9. C. It was deemed weaker than the positive identification

🟢 Explanation: Denial is a weak defense, especially when outweighed by a credible and positive identification by the victim.

 

10. C. The law prohibiting death penalty was in effect

🟢 Explanation: Although kidnapping for ransom may warrant the death penalty, R.A. No. 9346 prohibits its imposition, hence reclusion perpetua was applied instead.

 

 

Case  220 of 327

Case  221 of 327

Case  222 of 327

📌 Parties: The People of the Philippines (Plaintiff-Appellee) vs. Danilo Toro @ "Oto" (Accused-Appellant)
📌 G.R. No.: 245922
📌 Date of Promulgation: January 25, 2021

Here are the answers to the 10 HOTS multiple choice questions, each with a brief explanation:

 

1. c. There was insufficient proof of qualifying circumstances
   ➡️ The Supreme Court downgraded the conviction from Murder to Homicide because treachery and evident premeditation were not sufficiently proven.
2. d. The eyewitness did not see how the attack began
   ➡️ The Court emphasized that treachery requires proof of how the attack started. Espiña Jr. only saw a portion of the stabbing, not its onset.
3. c. He witnessed a portion of the stabbing incident
   ➡️ Espiña Jr., the victim’s son, saw his father being stabbed but did not witness the initiation of the attack.
4. b. There was no time to reflect before the crime
   ➡️ The prosecution failed to establish a clear timeline between the intent to kill and the execution, a requirement for evident premeditation.
5. c. Fled due to fear
   ➡️ The accused admitted he did not report the crime and instead fled, fearing retaliation from the victim's family.
6. c. Eyewitness testimony illuminated by a torch
   ➡️ The gas torch ("sirilya") allowed Espiña Jr. to see and identify Toro during the stabbing.
7. c. Reclusion temporal
   ➡️ After reclassification to Homicide, the Court imposed a sentence of 8 years and 1 day to 14 years and 8 months of reclusion temporal.
8. b. Moral, civil, temperate, and exemplary
   ➡️ The Supreme Court awarded ₱50,000 each for civil, moral, exemplary, and temperate damages due to the nature of the killing and proven circumstances.
9. b. It was proven during trial
   ➡️ Even if not alleged in the Information, abuse of superior strength was proven at trial, justifying exemplary damages under jurisprudence.
10. c. There is no standard reaction to trauma
    ➡️ The Court reiterated that human responses to traumatic events vary; Espiña Jr.'s delay in reporting did not affect his credibility.

 

 

Case  223 of 327

Here are the answers with brief explanations to the quiz based on People of the Philippines vs. Benson Tulod y Cuarte, G.R. No. 227993, September 25, 2019:

 

1. B – To ensure the continuity and integrity of evidence

👉 The chain of custody guarantees that the drug presented in court is the same one seized, preventing tampering or substitution.

2. C – Chain of custody was broken

👉 The Supreme Court acquitted Tulod due to inconsistent police testimonies and failure to justify deviation from the chain of custody procedure.

3. B – Absence of media representative

👉 The required presence of a DOJ, media, and elected official during inventory was not complied with, undermining the procedure's credibility.

4. C – Accused, barangay official, and prosecutor’s representative

👉 Only these three were present; the absence of a media representative was fatal to the prosecution's case.

5. C – It cast doubt on the handling of evidence

👉 Conflicting accounts about when and where evidence was turned over raised serious doubt on its integrity.

6. C – Doubt arising from broken chain of custody

👉 Even the presumption of regularity in police duties cannot prevail when clear doubt is raised due to procedural lapses.

7. C – Sequential documentation of handling seized drugs

👉 It involves step-by-step recording of who had custody of the drug from seizure to court presentation.

8. C – Evidence tampering and invalidation

👉 The lack of proper witnesses during inventory opens the door to possible tampering or switching of evidence.

9. B – It's mandatory unless justified

👉 The Court emphasized that compliance with procedures in Section 21 is mandatory, and any deviation must be convincingly explained.

10. C – Presumption of innocence

👉 This fundamental right protects the accused unless proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt, especially in drug cases with severe penalties.

 

 

Case  224 of 327

Case  225 of 327

Case  226 of 327

Case  227 of 327

Case  228 of 327

Case  229 of 327

✅ Answer Key with Explanations

Based on People of the Philippines v. XXX, G.R. No. 229677, October 2, 2019

 

1. C – The Supreme Court reversed the conviction due to material inconsistencies in the complainant's testimony.

2. C – The accused presented a love note and signed photo from the complainant as proof of a romantic relationship.

3. D – The Court noted the complainant admitted that the door was not locked and the windows were open, yet she didn’t attempt to escape.

4. C – The complainant failed to disclose the alleged rape immediately even when alone with her mother, raising doubt.

5. C – The neighbor DDD testified that she often saw the complainant and accused acting like lovers in public and in the apartment.

6. C – The Court stressed that rape convictions require proof beyond reasonable doubt, not just accusations.

7. B – The love note stated the accused was her “first”, indicating prior consent and affection.

8. B – The accused was allowed to propose without confrontation, which the Court found unnatural for a post-rape scenario.

9. B – No eyewitnesses to the alleged rape were presented, and the Court did not cite such presence.

10. C – The Court emphasized that rape allegations must be examined cautiously, given their serious nature and limited witnesses.

 

Case  230 of 327

Case  231 of 327

Case  232 of 327

Case  233 of 327

Case  234 of 327

Case  235 of 327

Case  236 of 327

Case  237 of 327

Case  238 of 327

Case  239 of 327

Here are the correct answers with short explanations for each of the 10 multiple-choice questions based on People v. Yap, G.R. No. 255087, October 4, 2023:

---

1. C. There was no evidence of bad faith or gross negligence
   ➡️ The Supreme Court ruled that criminal liability requires proof of bad faith or negligence, which was not established in this case.

2. C. Causing an advance payment without delivery of the vehicle
   ➡️ The main allegation was that public officials authorized a ₱6M payment before the firefighting vehicle was delivered.

3. B. That the accused acted in good faith
   ➡️ Good faith is a defense, not an element of the offense; the essential element is the presence of bad faith or negligence.

4. C. It covered the government's share in the letter of credit cost
   ➡️ The ₱6 million was the government's 20% contractual obligation to help secure a letter of credit, not an advance payment.

5. B. Rule of lenity
   ➡️ The Court resolved ambiguities in the contract in favor of the accused, applying the rule of lenity in criminal cases.

6. C. It complied with bidding requirements and was properly awarded the contract
   ➡️ AsiaBorders was found to be a qualified bidder with proper documentation and was declared the lowest responsive bid.

7. C. Void for violating due process rights
   ➡️ The Supreme Court held that convicting based on acts not alleged in the Information violates the accused’s constitutional right to be informed.

8. C. No undue injury due to eventual delivery and deduction from contract price
   ➡️ The ARFFV was eventually delivered, and the ₱6M was deducted from the contract price, causing no proven loss to the government.

9. C. The MCIAA Legal Officer and BAC
   ➡️ The contract was reviewed and cleared by MCIAA’s Legal Officer and BAC before it was signed and implemented.

10. C. Good faith in implementing board-approved contracts
    ➡️ The Court emphasized that public officials are presumed to act in good faith when carrying out board-approved decisions.

---

✅ These answers are grounded in the Supreme Court’s detailed discussion of due process, procurement procedures, and the mental element required for conviction under the Anti-Graft Law.

Case  240 of 327

Case  241 of 327

Case  242 of 327

📝 ANSWER KEY WITH EXPLANATIONS

📚 Based on: Philippine Heart Center v. The Local Government of Quezon City, G.R. No. 225409, March 11, 2020

 

1. C. It is a government instrumentality serving public health
   ✅ The Supreme Court ruled that PHC is exempt as a government instrumentality vested with corporate powers performing essential public services.
2. C. Spaces leased to private commercial businesses
   ✅ Only portions of PHC's properties leased to private taxable entities like Jollibee or Globe are subject to local tax.
3. D. Because it involved exempt government properties
   ✅ The Court voided the public auction since PHC’s properties are properties of public dominion exempt from levy unless the lessee is taxable and identified.
4. C. Special civil action for certiorari
   ✅ The Court affirmed that certiorari was proper due to the grave abuse of discretion by Quezon City officials, despite the non-judicial nature of the act.
5. D. It is generally exempt from local taxation
   ✅ Being a government instrumentality, PHC is protected from local taxes under the Local Government Code and jurisprudence.
6. B. Forum shopping and verification defects
   ✅ Respondents argued PHC failed to properly verify and certify its petition, but the Court applied liberality due to substantial compliance.
7. B. Public health and cardiovascular treatment
   ✅ PHC's primary mandate under PD 673 is to provide specialized cardiovascular care for the Filipino public, especially the poor.
8. B. Taxable due to beneficial use transfer
   ✅ If the beneficial use of government property is granted to a private entity, that portion becomes taxable under prevailing law.
9. C. It is proper when grave abuse of discretion is shown
   ✅ The Court clarified that certiorari may be invoked against executive acts if tainted with grave abuse of discretion.
10. A. It has priority over tax collection when public health is at risk
    ✅ The Court emphasized that taxing a hospital vital to public health would be self-defeating and contrary to the welfare of the people.

 

🎓 Case Reference:

Philippine Heart Center v. The Local Government of Quezon City

G.R. No. 225409 | March 11, 2020

📌 A landmark case in Taxation Law clarifying exemptions for government instrumentalities and the limits of local taxation.

 

📌 Use this for your bar review, midterms, and recits! Stay tuned for more quizzer sessions!

#Bar2025 #PhilippineCases #TaxationLaw #MCQReview #LegalEducationPH

 

From <https://chatgpt.com/c/66f014df-033c-800a-bb52-d197658eaefc>

 

Case  243 of 327

Case  244 of 327

✅ ANSWER KEY WITH EXPLANATIONS
Case Title: Police Officer Arthur M. Pineda vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 228232, March 27, 2023

1. C. Right to be informed of the nature and cause of accusation
   👉 The Supreme Court acquitted Pineda due to violation of his constitutional right to be clearly informed of the crime he was being charged with.

2. D. He was convicted of a crime not properly charged
   👉 The conviction was reversed because Pineda was charged with one crime but convicted of a different one without proper legal basis.

3. B. Allegation of conspiracy or negligence
   👉 The information lacked specific allegations necessary to establish either conspiracy (connivance) or negligence.

4. B. He was on lunch and helped in another incident
   👉 Pineda left his post to eat and respond to a robbery incident, during which the detainee escaped.

5. C. Changed the basis of his conviction to a different offense
   👉 The RTC and CA convicted him of evasion through negligence, which was not the crime originally charged.

6. C. The offense proven was not included in the one charged
   👉 The Supreme Court ruled that the offense he was convicted of was not necessarily included in the offense charged.

7. C. He raised it only during appeal
   👉 Objections to the authority of the prosecutor must be raised before arraignment, not belatedly on appeal.

8. B. Elements of the offense must be clearly stated
   👉 The Court emphasized that all elements of the offense must be fully alleged in the information to ensure due process.

9. C. Conviction must be based only on what is charged or necessarily included
   👉 The Court reiterated that a person can’t be convicted of an offense not charged unless it is necessarily included in the charge.

10. D. The accused was acquitted based on a constitutional violation
    👉 The Supreme Court acquitted Pineda due to violation of his constitutional right to be informed of the accusation against him.

---

📌 This content is for educational purposes only and was made using premium artificial intelligence. Accuracy is aimed for, but it is not infallible.

Case  245 of 327

✅ Answer Key with Explanations

Case: Merlinda Plana vs. Lourdes Tan Chua and Heirs of Ramon Chiang
G.R. No. 250636 | January 10, 2023

---

1. C. Complaint for reconveyance

Merlinda filed to recover ownership of a lot fraudulently transferred and mortgaged by her husband.

2. B. Lot 10031

The disputed property was Lot 10031, covered by a title fraudulently transferred to Ramon Chiang.

3. C. She relied solely on the certificate of title

Lourdes claimed good faith by relying on TCT No. T-86916, which named Ramon as the owner.

4. C. She was not at fault

The Supreme Court found Merlinda was not negligent in the fraudulent issuance of the new title.

5. C. Merlinda Plana

The RTC declared the sale and mortgage void and reinstated Merlinda’s title.

6. A. Cancelling the sale but upholding the mortgage

The CA ruled Lourdes was in good faith and allowed her mortgage to remain annotated.

7. B. True ownership prevails over good-faith mortgage

The Court held that Merlinda’s ownership was superior because she was not negligent.

8. C. The mortgagor had no valid title

Ramon’s title was based on a void sale, making the mortgage invalid despite Lourdes’ good faith.

9. C. Show cause for not disclosing key facts

The Court required Lourdes and her counsel to explain their failure to reveal material facts from another case.

10. B. TCT No. T-57961

The Supreme Court reinstated the original title under the names of Nelson Plana and Merlinda Plana.

Case  246 of 327

Here are the answers with short explanations to the 10 multiple-choice questions based on PPC Asia Corporation vs. DTI, G.R. No. 246439, September 8, 2020:

---

1. C. Failure to attach required documents
➡ The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition because PPC failed to attach the complaint, position paper, and appeal memorandum—documents essential to the case.

2. C. Consumer complaint involving substandard batteries
➡ Biraogo filed a consumer complaint alleging that the batteries sold by PPC and others were substandard and non-compliant with product safety standards.

3. B. Department of Trade and Industry – Fair Trade Enforcement Bureau
➡ The DTI-FTEB initially ruled on the consumer complaint and dismissed it for lack of legal standing and evidence.

4. C. The applicable rules prohibited such motion
➡ PPC claimed it could not file a motion for reconsideration because DTI rules explicitly prohibit it in consumer cases.

5. C. It is a sufficient ground for dismissal
➡ The Supreme Court upheld that failure to attach necessary supporting documents is a valid ground to dismiss a petition.

6. C. It was not heard before the testing order was issued
➡ PPC claimed denial of due process, arguing they were not allowed to oppose the DTI's battery testing order.

7. C. Ordered a confirmatory product test
➡ The DTI ordered an official test on the branded batteries before resolving the case on the merits.

8. C. It was an initial procedure and not a final judgment
➡ The Supreme Court clarified that the testing order was a preliminary step and did not constitute a finding of guilt.

9. C. Essential to the administration of justice
➡ The Court emphasized that procedural rules are vital to ensure fair, efficient, and orderly judicial proceedings.

10. B. The CA resolutions dismissing the petition were affirmed
➡ The Supreme Court denied PPC’s petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ dismissal due to procedural lapses.

---

📌 Disclaimer: For educational purposes only. This summary is based on the Supreme Court ruling and was generated using premium AI. Accuracy is aimed for but not guaranteed.

Case  247 of 327

Case  248 of 327

Case  249 of 327

Case  250 of 327

Case  251 of 327

Case  252 of 327

Here are the answers with brief explanations for each of the 10 multiple-choice questions based on PSALM v. COA, G.R. No. 247924, November 16, 2021:

---

1. C. Whether COA’s delayed response justified the lack of prior concurrence
   ✅ The core issue was whether COA's inaction excused PSALM's failure to get prior concurrence.

2. C. There was an urgent need to comply with privatization timelines
   ✅ PSALM needed to avoid delays in complying with the EPIRA’s 70% privatization requirement.

3. C. Advisory services on privatization documents
   ✅ The consultants provided legal advice, not litigation, on privatization contracts and bidding processes.

4. C. COA gravely abused its discretion due to inordinate delay
   ✅ The Supreme Court held that COA’s 3-year delay constituted grave abuse of discretion.

5. C. Right to a speedy disposition of cases
   ✅ The Court ruled that COA’s inaction violated PSALM’s constitutional right to speedy case resolution.

6. B. If they are proven to have acted with bad faith or malice
   ✅ Public officials may only be personally liable if they acted in bad faith, which was not the case here.

7. B. Office of the Government Corporate Counsel
   ✅ The OGCC promptly gave written concurrence, unlike COA.

8. C. It was equivalent to a pre-audit control
   ✅ The Court classified COA’s concurrence requirement as a form of pre-audit to control public fund use.

9. C. COA failed to respond within the time requested
   ✅ PSALM waited over three years for COA's action, making further delay unreasonable.

10. D. The principle of speedy public service
    ✅ The Court emphasized efficient government service and the right to timely administrative action.

---

Case  253 of 327

Here are the answers with short explanations to the 10 multiple choice questions based on the case Guido B. Pulong v. Super Manufacturing Inc., G.R. No. 247819, October 14, 2019:

---

1. C. Voluntary and explicit consent of the employee

Retirement below the compulsory age of 65 is only valid if there is explicit, voluntary, and informed consent by the employee.

2. C. Invalid due to lack of voluntary consent

The Supreme Court ruled the retirement illegal since Pulong never consented to the early retirement scheme.

3. B. The signatories were not proven authorized representatives

SMI failed to prove that the MOA signatories had authority to represent all workers, including Pulong.

4. C. Gratuities like shirts and a health card

SMI argued that Pulong’s acceptance of minor company benefits like a sack of rice and health cards estopped him from denying the MOA.

5. D. Right to security of tenure

The Court emphasized that early retirement without consent violates the constitutional right to security of tenure.

6. B. Estoppel

The Supreme Court rejected the application of estoppel, finding that receiving benefits did not imply agreement to the retirement terms.

7. C. It is required for validity

The Court reiterated that for early retirement policies to be valid, they must be mutually agreed upon.

8. B. Reinstatement

Reinstatement was denied because Pulong had already reached the compulsory retirement age of 65.

9. C. He had already reached 65

The Court ruled that reinstatement was no longer feasible since Pulong had already reached the mandatory retirement age.

10. B. It denied the employee’s complaint

The NLRC reversed its earlier ruling and declared the retirement valid, but this was overturned by the Supreme Court.

---

📚 Don’t forget to COMMENT your score, SAVE this for review, and SUBSCRIBE for more case quizzes and legal content!

Case  254 of 327

Case  255 of 327

Case  256 of 327

Case  257 of 327

Case  258 of 327

Case  259 of 327

Case  260 of 327

Case  261 of 327

Republic of the Philippines vs. Angelique Pearl O. Claur and Mark A. Claur, G.R. No. 246868, February 15, 2022.

Here are the answers with brief explanations for each of the 10 questions:

1. c. Proven mutual psychological incapacity
   ➤ The Supreme Court found both spouses psychologically incapacitated based on clear and convincing behavioral evidence.

2. c. It is a legal concept proven through behavior and evidence
   ➤ The Court emphasized that psychological incapacity is a legal, not medical, concept and may be proven without clinical diagnosis.

3. c. Patterns of violence, manipulation, and abandonment
   ➤ These consistent patterns of behavior were cited as manifestations of psychological incapacity.

4. b. Psychiatric report based on interviews and testing
   ➤ Despite hearsay elements, the Court admitted the psychiatric report since it was reasonably relied upon by experts.

5. c. The psychological incapacity was not sufficiently proven
   ➤ The Republic argued that the testimonies and findings were self-serving and unsubstantiated.

6. c. The marriage is void ab initio
   ➤ A marriage declared due to psychological incapacity is considered void from the beginning.

7. c. Psychological incapacity can be established without it
   ➤ Direct psychiatric examination is not mandatory under the Tan-Andal doctrine if there is clear and convincing evidence.

8. b. Borderline personality traits with suicidal tendencies
   ➤ Angelique was diagnosed with borderline personality disorder, showing impulsive and self-harming behaviors.

9. c. Acceptable if reasonably relied upon by experts
   ➤ Expert opinions may be based on hearsay if such data is standardly used in the field.

10. c. A marriage without mutual love and respect cannot be protected by law
    ➤ The Court ruled that the State cannot preserve a marriage that lacks its essential legal and emotional foundations.

Case  262 of 327

Here are the answers to the 10 HOTS multiple choice questions based on Republic v. Datuin, G.R. No. 224076, July 28, 2020, with brief explanations:

---

1. ✅ C. To cancel land titles over inalienable public land
The Republic alleged that the subject lands were inalienable and fraudulently titled.

2. ✅ B. Motion for summary judgment
The RTC initially denied but later granted the motion for summary judgment in favor of respondents.

3. ✅ C. It rendered summary judgment despite genuine factual issues
The Supreme Court ruled that the RTC committed grave abuse by ignoring unresolved factual disputes.

4. ✅ D. Respond to a request for admission
The trial court deemed material facts admitted due to the Republic’s failure to respond to the request.

5. ✅ B. Petition for certiorari
The Republic challenged the summary judgment via a certiorari petition, alleging grave abuse of discretion.

6. ✅ B. Inalienable public land
The case involved land covered by a Fishpond Lease Agreement and previously declared as inalienable.

7. ✅ C. Dismissed the petition for using the wrong remedy
The CA ruled that the Republic should have filed an appeal, not certiorari.

8. ✅ B. Request for admission
The RTC's decision largely relied on the Republic’s failure to answer the request for admission.

9. ✅ C. Reopen the case and conduct a full trial
The Supreme Court remanded the case to the RTC for pre-trial and trial on the merits.

10. ✅ D. Right to due process
The Republic was denied a fair opportunity to present its case, violating its right to due process.

---

📌 Like and share this quizzer! Save for later. Subscribe for more bar review content.
📚 Disclaimer: For educational use only. Not infallible. Generated using premium AI.

Case  263 of 327

Case  264 of 327

Here are the answers with short explanations for each of the 10 HOTS multiple choice questions based on Republic of the Philippines vs. Heirs of Julian Sta. Ana and Mercedes Sta. Ana, G.R. No. 233578, March 15, 2021:

---

1. C. Alleged double titling without actual proof
   👉 The main issue was the alleged prior registration of a portion of Lot 459, which was unsubstantiated by any existing title or decision.

2. C. Lack of existing records proving prior title
   👉 Courts found that no cadastral decision, title, or technical documents supported the Republic’s claim of prior registration.

3. C. They serve as conclusive evidence of ownership
   👉 A Torrens title is indefeasible and serves as absolute proof of ownership unless fraud is clearly proven.

4. C. Republic of the Philippines
   👉 The Republic, through the Office of the Solicitor General, opposed the registration claiming potential double titling.

5. C. They remain valid indefinitely
   👉 Final and executory land decisions remain enforceable and do not expire over time.

6. C. Cadastral decision or title
   👉 The government failed to present any title or decision from the alleged Cadastral Case No. 10 to support its opposition.

7. B. Amended plan segregating titled portion
   👉 The LRA recommended submission of an amended plan to exclude the supposedly titled area, though no such area could be verified.

8. C. Petition was denied and heirs granted title
   👉 The Supreme Court affirmed the CA and RTC rulings granting the title to the heirs due to lack of valid opposition.

9. C. To ensure secure land ownership
   👉 The Torrens system is designed to give certainty and security to landowners, preventing multiple claims.

10. D. They remain enforceable unless validly overturned
    👉 The 1967 decision was final and could not be disregarded simply because decades had passed without challenge.

---

✅ Keep studying, and let these doctrines guide you in mastering Civil Law and land registration principles!

Case  265 of 327

Here are the answers with brief explanations for the quiz on Republic of the Philippines (PRA) vs. Ria S. Rubin, G.R. No. 213960, October 7, 2020:

 

1. C – Motion to intervene

🔍 PRA sought to intervene in Rubin’s accion reinvindicatoria case, asserting ownership over the subject lots.

 

2. B – PRA's legal interest was indirect and inchoate

🔍 The Supreme Court ruled that PRA had no perfected legal title, making its interest insufficient for intervention.

 

3. C – Presidential decree

🔍 PRA based its claim on PD No. 1085, which transferred ownership of reclaimed lands to it, though no title had been issued.

 

4. C – MERALCO

🔍 MERALCO occupied the land under a lease agreement with PRA when Rubin filed suit to recover possession.

 

5. B – Because a separate reversion case was already pending

🔍 The courts found PRA’s interest could be adequately addressed in the reversion case already filed before another branch.

 

6. C – Action for recovery of ownership and possession

🔍 Accion reinvindicatoria is a civil action filed by one claiming ownership to recover property and possession.

 

7. B – Discretion of the trial court based on rules of procedure

🔍 Intervention is not a matter of right but is left to the court’s discretion under procedural rules.

 

8. C – If it is direct and material

🔍 Only interests that are actual, direct, and immediate qualify for intervention in court proceedings.

 

9. C – ₱150,000

🔍 Rubin bought each of the two lots from the previous registered owners for ₱150,000.

 

10. B – Suspended the proceedings

🔍 RTC Branch 255 suspended the accion reinvindicatoria case to await the outcome of the reversion case in Branch 198 to avoid conflicting rulings.

 

Case  266 of 327

Case  267 of 327

Case  268 of 327

Case  269 of 327

Case  270 of 327

Case  271 of 327

Case  272 of 327

Case  273 of 327

Case  274 of 327

Case  275 of 327

Case  276 of 327

Case  277 of 327

Case  278 of 327

Case  279 of 327

Case  280 of 327

Case  281 of 327

Case  282 of 327

Case  283 of 327

Case  284 of 327

Case  285 of 327

Case  286 of 327

Franciviel Derama Sestoso vs. United Philippine Lines, Inc., Carnival Cruise Lines, and Fernandino T. Lising*
G.R. No. 237063, July 24, 2019

Here are the correct answers to the quiz, each with a brief explanation:

1. C. Team Headwaiter
   ➤ Sestoso was hired as a team headwaiter on board M/V Carnival Inspiration when he sustained his injury.
2. C. No final disability assessment was issued within 240 days
   ➤ The company-designated physician failed to issue a final and definite assessment within the 240-day period, making the disability total and permanent by law.
3. C. His illness was pre-existing and not work-related
   ➤ The employer argued that osteoarthritis was pre-existing and thus not compensable.
4. B. Osteoarthritis and meniscal tear
   ➤ Medical evaluations showed he suffered from osteoarthritis and a medial meniscal tear in the right knee.
5. C. Court of Appeals
   ➤ The Court of Appeals reversed the NLRC’s decision, denying total and permanent disability benefits.
6. C. It is presumed to be work-related unless disproved
   ➤ Under the POEA-SEC, illnesses not listed as occupational are presumed work-related unless the employer proves otherwise.
7. C. His work involved physically strenuous tasks
   ➤ The Supreme Court noted that his duties involved lifting, kneeling, and cleaning—aggravating his condition.
8. C. Awarded permanent and total disability benefits
   ➤ The NLRC ruled in favor of Sestoso, awarding full disability compensation.
9. C. US$60,000
   ➤ The Supreme Court awarded US$60,000 as total and permanent disability compensation.
10. C. 10% attorney’s fees
    ➤ Attorney’s fees were granted as Sestoso had to litigate to enforce his rights.

 

 

Case  287 of 327

Case  288 of 327

Case  289 of 327

Case  290 of 327

Case  291 of 327

Case  292 of 327

Case  293 of 327

Case  294 of 327

Case  295 of 327

Case  296 of 327

Case  297 of 327

Case  298 of 327

Case  299 of 327

Case  300 of 327

Case  301 of 327

Case  302 of 327

Case  303 of 327

Case  304 of 327

Case  305 of 327

Case  306 of 327

Case  307 of 327

Case  308 of 327

Case  309 of 327

Case  310 of 327

Case  311 of 327

Case  312 of 327

Case  313 of 327

Case  314 of 327

Case  315 of 327

Case  316 of 327

Case  317 of 327

Case  318 of 327

Case  319 of 327

Case  320 of 327

Case  321 of 327

Case  322 of 327

Case  323 of 327

Case  324 of 327

Case  325 of 327

Case  326 of 327

Case  327 of 327

Looking for a reliable and affordable study companion for the 2025 Bar Exams? The Law Requisites PH offers expertly curated digital case digests designed specifically for bar examinees, law students, and legal professionals. With concise, organized content tailored to support your review and legal practice, you can now access these powerful tools for only ₱499. Start strengthening your preparation today by visiting https://beacons.ai/thelawrequisitesph. Your bar success begins with the right resources—get yours now!

📢DISCLAIMER:

This content is for educational purposes only and does not guarantee the infallibility of the legal content presented. All content was created using premium AI tools and reviewed for accuracy to the best of our abilities. Always consult a qualified legal professional for legal advice.