seasonably filed a motion for reconsideration of the decision asserting that

Seasonably filed a motion for reconsideration of the

This preview shows page 42 - 44 out of 91 pages.

seasonably filed a motion for reconsideration of the decision asserting that the court erred in awarding the civil liability on the basis of Juan’s judicial affidavit, a documentary evidence which Prosecutor Marilag failed to orally offer. (C) is the motion for reconsideration meritorious? (2 % ) SUGGESTED A N SWER ( A) Y es, Pedro’s lawyer is correct in objecting to the judicial affidavit of Mario. The Judicial Affidavit Rules shall apply only to criminal actions where the maximum of the imposable penalty does not exceed six years ( Section 9 (a) (1) of A.M. No. 12-8-8-SC or the Judicial Affidavit Rule). Here, the maximum impossible penalty for the crime of theft of a cell phone worth P20,000.00 is prision may or in its minimum to medium periods, or six years and one day to eight years and one day. Thus, Pedro’s law y er is correct in objecting to the judicial affidavit of M ario. [Note: The Committ e e respectfully recommends that the examinees be given full credit to any answer given to the question, because the specific imposable penalties for crimes or offenses charged are not included in the 2015 B AR Examination S yllabus in Remedial Law). (B) No, Pedro’s lawyer is not correct in objecting to the judicial affidavit of Juan because the Judicial Affidavit Rules apply with respect to the civil aspect of the actions, regardless of the penalties involved (Section 9 of A.M . No. 12-8-8-SC or the Judicial Affidavit Rule). Here, the judicial affidavit of Juan was offered to prove the civil liability of Pedro. Thus, the objection of Pedro’s law y er to the judicial affidavit of Juan is not correct. (C) No. The motion for reconsideration is not meritorious. The judicial affidavit is not required to be orally offered as separate documentary evidence, because it is filed in lieu of the direct testimony of the witness. It is offered, at the time the witness is called to testify, and any objection to it should have been made at the time the witness was presented (Sections 6 and 8, A.M. No. 12-8-8-SC or the Judicial Affidavit Rule). Since the receipt attached to the judicial affidavit was orally offered, there was enough basis for the court to aw a rd civil liability. ALTERNATIVE ANSWER (C) Yes the motion for reconsideration is me ritoriou s The Judic ial Affidavit Rules require an oral offer o f evidence upon the te rm ination of the testim o ny of the last witness ( S ection 8 , AMN O, 12-8-8-S CO the Judicial Affidavit Rule).
Image of page 42
XV. Water Builders, a construction company based in Makati City, ente r ed into a construction agreement with Super Pow er s, Inc., an enero company based in Manila, for the construction of a m ini hy d ro elec t ri c plant. Water Builders failed to complete the project within the stipulated duration. Super Powers cancelled the contract. Water Bui ld ers filed a request for arbitration with the Construction In du st r y Arbitration Commission (CIAC). After due proceedings, CIAC rendered j udgm ent in favor of Super Powers, Inc. ordering Water Builders to pay the former P10 million, the full amount of the down payment paid, and P2 million by way of liquidated damages. Dissatisfied with the CIAC’s judgment, Wate
Image of page 43
Image of page 44

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 91 pages?

  • Fall '19
  • Appellate court

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture