San Beda Redbook Errata 2014

8/11/2019 San Beda Redbook Errata 2014

1/3

ERRATA

2014REDBOOK

1

2014 San Beda Centralized Bar Operations

POLITICAL LAW

I. Page 30, Question No. 1 should be read as:Q: May former President Estrada run for re-electionfor President?ANS:The Court did not rule on the matter. However, hewas able to participate as a candidate for the position of

President in the May 10, 2010 elections where hegarnered the second highest number of votes, despite apetition for his disqualification because no temporaryrestraining order was issued by court. Since he was notelected President the second time he ran and the issueon the proper interpretation of the phrase "anyreelection" will be premised on a persons second(whether immediate or not) election as President, thereis no case or controversy to be resolved by the SupremeCourt. No live conflict of legal rights exists. Thus, anydiscussion of his "reelection" will simply be hypotheticaland speculative. It will serve no useful or practicalpurpose (Pormento v. Estrada, G.R. No. 191988, August31, 2010).

II. Page 38, Question No. 3 should be read as:Q: What is pocket veto? Is it allowed under theConstitution?ANS:(Same answer)

III. Page 98, Question No. 1 should be read as:Q: Are dual citizens required to take an oath ofrenunciation of foreign citizenship to be eligible torun for elective office?ANS:It depends. Dual citizens by virtue of birth are notrequired by law to take the oath of renunciation as themere filing of the certificate of candidacy already carrieswith it an implied renunciation of foreign citizenship

(Cordova v. Comelec, G.R. No. 176947, February 19,2009). Dual citizens by naturalization, on the other hand,are required to take not only the Oath of Allegiance tothe Republic of the Philippines but also to personallyrenounce foreign citizenship in order to qualify as acandidate for public office (Maquiling v. COMELEC, G.R.No. 195649, April 16, 2013).

IV. Page 101, Question No. 2 should be read as:Q: When is the confirmation of the Commission onAppointments required?ANS: The following appointees require the confirmationof the Commission on Appointments:xxx same enumeration xxx

V. Citation on Page 185, Question No. 1 should be(STATUTE OF THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OFJUSTICE, Art. 38).

LABOR LAW

I. Page 224, Question No. 1, the citation should be(Art. 283(i), formerly Art. 277, as amended by R.A.No. 6715, Sec. 33).

II. Page 231, Question No. 1, the question shouldbe:

Q:Is R.A. No. 10022, Sec. 7, which reinstated theprovision in R.A. No. 8042, Sec. 10, valid?

ANS: No. In the case of Serrano v. Gallant MaritimeServices, Inc. on March 24, 2009, the Supreme Court

declared as unconstitutional the clause or for threemonths for every year of the unexpired term, whicheveris less provided in the 5

th paragraph of Section 10 of

R.A. No. 8042. But R.A. 10022, passed one (1) after theruling in Soriano, reinstated the provision. However, theCourt in the case of Yap v. Thenamaris ShipsManagement on May 30, 2011, declared R.A. No.

10022, Sec. 7 unconstitutional stating that as a generalrule, an unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers norights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; itcreates no office; it is inoperative as if it has not beenpassed at all. The doctrine of operative fact serves asan exception to the aforementioned general rule butsuch doctrine is applicable only when a declaration ofunconstitutionality will impose due burden on those whohave relied on the invalid law.

III. Page 309, Question 3, the citation should be(LABOR CODE, Art. 249, formerly Art. 243).

CIVIL LAW

I. Page 712, Question No. 3 should be read as:Q: What are the grounds for new trial?ANS: The grounds for new trial are:1. Fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence

which ordinary prudence could not have guardedagainst and by reason of which such aggrieved partyhas probably been impaired in his rights; or

2. Newly discovered evidence, which he could not, withreasonable diligence, have discovered and producedat the trial, and which if presented would probablyalter the result (RULES OF COURT, Rule 37, Sec.1).

TAXATION LAW

I. Page 830, Question No. 4 should be read as:Q: Enumerate special laws granting tax exemptions.ANS: The following are some special laws granting taxexemptions:xxx2. R.A. 6657 (Comprehensive Agrarian ReformProgram)xxx

II. Page 851, Question No. 4 should be read as:Q: Is a taxpayer benefactor of a senior citizenentitled to additional exemption for such seniorcitizen?ANS: No, he shall not be entitled to claim the additionalpersonal exemption of P25,000 which is allowed only toindividual taxpayers with a qualified child or children (RR07-2010, Sec.11).

III. Page 851, Question No. 5 should be DELETED.

COMMERCIAL LAW

I. Page 107, Question No. 1 should be DELETED.

II. Page 141, Question No. 4 should be read as:Q: Are both common and preferred stocks includedin the determination of the outstanding capital

stock?


2/3

ERRATA

2014REDBOOK

2


ANS:Yes. In a case decided by the Supreme Court, itwas ruled that the term capital under Section 11,Article XII of the Constitution refers only to shares ofstock entitled to vote in the election of directors(Gamboa v. Teves, G.R. No. 176579, October 9, 2012).However, the Securities and Exchange Commissionissued and promulgated a circular providing that for

purposes of determining compliance with the ownershiprequirements in the Constitution and/or existing laws byCorporations, the required percentage of Filipinoownership shall be applied to both:1. the total number of outstanding shares of stock

entitled to vote in the election of directors; and2. the total number of outstanding shares, whether or

not entitled to vote in the election of directors (SECMemorandum Circular No. 8 Series of 2013, Sec. 2).

III. Page 209, Question No. 1 should be read as:Q: Can the AMLC freeze the monetary instrument orproperty related unlawful activity?ANS:Yes. The AMLC, either upon its own initiative or at

the request of the Anti-Terrorism Council, is authorizedto issue an ex parte order to freeze without delay: (a)property or funds that are in any way related to financingof terrorism or acts of terrorism; or (b) property or fundsof any person, group of persons, terrorist organization,or association, in relation to whom there is probablecause to believe that they are committing or attemptingor conspiring to commit, or participating in or facilitationthe commission of financing of terrorism or acts ofterrorism as defined under R.A. 10168. The Freezeorder shall be effective for a period not exceeding twenty(20) days. Upon a petition filed by the AMLC before theexpiration of the period, the effectivity of the freeze ordermay be extended up to a period not exceeding six (6)months upon order of the Court of Appeals: Provided,That the twenty-day period shall be tolled upon filing of apetition to extend the effectivity of the freeze order (R.A.10168, Sec. 11). However, with respect to unlawfulactivities, except terrorism, defined in Section 3(i) of theAMLA, it is the Court of Appeals which can issue afreeze order upon a verified ex parte petition by theAMLC and after determination that probable causeexists that any monetary instrument or property isrelated to an unlawful activity. In such a case, the freezeorder shall be effective immediately, and shall notexceed six (6) months depending on the circumstancesof the case; Provided, that if no case is filed against theperson whose account has been frozen within the perioddetermined by the court, the freeze order shall be

deemed ipso facto lifted (R.A. 10365, Sec. 8).

IV. Page. 211, Question No. 3 should be read as:Q: What is an export enterprise?ANS: It is an enterprise wherein a manufacturer,processor or service (including tourism) enterpriseexports sixty percent (60%) or more of its output, orwherein a trader purchases products domestically andexports sixty percent (60%) thereof (R.A. 7042, Sec.3[e]).

CRIMINAL LAW

I. Page 281, Question No. 4 should be read as:

Q: What is subsidiary imprisonment? How it is applied underthe law?

ANS: Subsidiary imprisonment is the subsidiary personalliability to besuffered by the convict who has no propertywith which to meet the fine, at the rate of one day foreach amount equivalent to the highest minimum wagerate prevailing in the Philippines at the time of therendition of judgment of conviction by the trial court (R.A.10159, Sec. 1).

II. The headings (Inciting to Rebellion and Proposalto Commit Rebellion) of the table in Page 311,Question No. 3 should be interchanged.

III. Page 323, Question No. 1 should be read as:Decree Codi fy ing the Laws on Il legal / Unlawful

Poss essio n Etc. (P.D. No. 1866 As Am ended B y R.A.

No. 8294)

Q: What are the acts punishable?ANS: The acts punishable are:1. Unlawful manufacture, sale, acquisition, disposition

or possession of firearms or ammunition orinstruments used or intended to be used in the

manufacture of firearms of ammunition (P.D. 1866,Sec.1).The possession of any machinery, tool orinstrument used directly in the manufacture offirearms or ammunition, by any person whosebusiness or employment does not lawfully deal withthe manufacture of firearms or ammunition, shall beprima facieevidence that such article is intended tobe used in the unlawful/illegal manufacture offirearms or ammunition;

Note: If the violation is in furtherance of or incidentto, or in connection with the crime of rebellion orinsurrection, sedition, or attempted coup d'etat, suchviolation shall be absorbed as an element of thecrime of rebellion, or insurrection, sedition, orattempted coup d'etat.

The no other crime clause under Sec.1 of P.D.1866 as amended by R.A. 8294 has been repealedby R.A.10591: An Act Providing for aComprehensive Law on Firearms andAmmunition and Providing Penalties forViolations thereof enacted on May 29, 2013.Under the new law, the use of the loose firearmsshall be deemed as an aggravating circumstance inthe other crime committed only when it is inherentin the commission of the crime. The new lawexpressly provides that if the crime is committedwithout using the loose firearm, the violation of this

Act (R.A. 10591) shall be considered as a distinctand separate offense.

In addition, the Act provides that if the crimecommitted with the use of a loose firearm ispenalized by the law with a maximum penalty whichis lower than that prescribed in the preceding sectionfor illegal possession of firearm, the penalty for illegalpossession of firearm shall be imposed in lieu of thepenalty for the crime charged: Provided, further, Thatif the crime committed with the use of a loose firearmis penalized by the law with a maximum penaltywhich is equal to that imposed under the precedingsection for illegal possession of firearms, the penalty

of prision mayorin its minimum period shall beimposed in addition to the penalty for the crime


3/3

ERRATA

2014REDBOOK

3


punishable under the Revised Penal Code or otherspecial laws of which he/she is found guilty (R.A.10591, Sec. 29).

2. Unlawful manufacture, sale, acquisition, dispositionor possession of explosives (P.D. 1866, Sec. 3).The possession of any machinery, tool or instrument

directly used in the manufacture of explosives, byany person whose business or employment does notlawfully deal with the manufacture of explosives shallbe prima facie evidence that such article is intendedto be used in the unlawful/illegal manufacture ofexplosives;

3. Tampering of firearm's serial number (P.D. 1866,Sec. 5);

4. Repacking or altering the composition of lawfullymanufactured explosives (P.D. 1866, Sec. 6);and

5. Unauthorized issuance of authority to carry firearmand/or ammunition outside of residence (P.D. 1866,Sec. 7);

6. Transferring the possession of any firearm to any

person who has not yet obtained or secured thenecessary license or permit thereof (R.A. 10591,Sec. 41).

Note:An imitation firearm used in the commission of a

crime shall be considered a real firearm as defined in

this Act and the person who committed the crime shall

be punished in accordance with this Act: Provided, That

injuries caused on the occasion of the conduct of

competitions, sports, games, or any recreation activities

involving imitation firearms shall not be punishable

under this Act (R.A. 10591, Sec. 35).

Note: On April 8, 2014, the Supreme Court En Bancissued a TRO effective Immediately and until furtherorders restraining the PNP from enforcing certainprovisions provided under R.A. 10591 including:a. Centralizing all firearms applications and renewals

at the Headquarters, Camp Crame, Quezon City,and ordering that PNP continue to accept, processand approve licensing and renewals thereof in allPNP regional offices and ordering the reinstatementof all PNP CSG SATO and FESAGS satelliteoffices, and previously accredited testing centers fordrug, neuro-psych and medical clinics in the regionsand NCR for purposes of firearms licensingrequirements;

b. Utilizing any courier services for deliveries of

approved firearms license cards, andc. Implementing and enforcing the waiver and

consent requirement for licensing and registrationof firearms, allowing the respondent PNPspersonnel to enter gun applicants residence anddwelling for inspection, pursuant to Sec. 9 of RA10591 and Rule 3, Sec. 9 of the IRR (PROGUN v.PNP, G.R. No. 211567, April 8, 2014).

REMEDIAL LAW

I. Page 492, Question No. 6 should be read as:Q: What is the effect of not impleading the indispensableparty?

ANS:Where the indispensable party is not impleaded oris not before the court, an outright dismissal is not the

remedy. Rather, the court shall order such party to beimpleaded. It is when the order of the court to impleadan indispensable party goes unheeded may the case bedismissed for failure to obey judicial order under Rule17.

II. Page 634, Question No. 2 should be read as:

Q: State the contents of the return of a writ ofamparoANS: Within 72 hours after service of the writ, xxxsame xxx.

III. Page 667, Question No. 4 should be read as:Q: When is bail a matter of right?ANS:All persons in custody shall be admitted to bail as a matterof right, with sufficient sureties, or released on recognizance:1. Before or after conviction by the MTC; and2. Before conviction by the RTC of an offense not punishable

by reclusion perpetua, life imprisonment or death (Sec. 4,Rule 114).

IV. Page 667, Question No. 5 should be read as:Q: When is bail a matter of discretion?ANS:Bail is a matter of discretion in the following cases:1. Upon conviction by the RTC of an offense not

punishable by death, reclusion perpeua or lifeimprisonment, admission to bail is discretionary (Sec.5);

2. After conviction by the RTC wherein a penalty ofimprisonment exceeding 6 but not more than 20 yearsis imposed, and not one of the circumstances below ispresent and proved, bail is a matter of discretion(Sec.5):a. Recidivism, quasi-recidivism or habitual

delinquency or commission of crime aggravated bythe circumstances of reiteration;

b. Previous escape from legal confinement, evasion ofsentence or violation of the conditions of bailwithout valid justification;

c. Commission of an offense while on probation,parole or under conditional pardon;

d. Circumstance of the accused or his case indicatesthe probability of flight if released on bail;

e. Undue risk of commission of another crime by theaccused during pendency of appeal.

It may be inferred from Sec. 5 that, if the accused isconvicted by the RTC of a crime with a penalty of notmore than 6 years imprisonment, bail is still amatter of discretion. However, the absence of the

above-cited circumstances under Section 5 is notanymore required in order for the court to decidewhether or not to grant bail.

Note: In order to grant bail as a matter of discretion,there must be no final judgment yet. In other words, theaccused should appeal the conviction of the RTC to theappellate court. Upon conviction of the RTC, the bailposted earlier as a matter of right loses its force and theaccused must file a new and separate petition for bail.

Documents

San Beda Redbook Errata 2014