MIDTERM EXAMINATIONS IN STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION

PROF.: LHEM J. NAVAL, Esq.

INSTRUCTIONS:

1. Start answering in Leaf #2 of your notebook. NO TEARING OF LEAVES/PAGES.

2. Observe the one (1) inch margin on both sides.
3. AVOID LUMPED PARAGRAPH. Each paragraph is limited to a maximum of two
(2) sentences.
4. Observe one space every after paragraph. This is mandatory.
5. On the essay part, one item per page/leaf. Answers will be a maximum of 4
paragraphs.
6. NO CREDITS TO ANY VIOLATION THEREOF.

I. Objective. Give the answer to the following:

1. A law which affects the community at large; That which affects all people of the
state or all of a particular class.
2. A law relates or operates over a particular locality instead of over the whole
territory of the state.
3. Retrospective laws which corrects irregularities, inconsistencies and ambiguities
in the law.
4. It is the essence of the law; composing of the purpose and meaning of the law.
5. It is the scope of the law determined by the language used in the law.
6. The presumption that the words employed by the legislature in a statute correctly
express its intention or will, precluding any construction.
7. When the Supreme Court has once laid down a principleof law as applicable to a
certain state of facts, it will adhere to that principle and apply it to all future cases
where the facts are substantially the same.
8. The authenticated final copy of the bill; authentication by Senate President and
Speaker of the House of Representatives, Approval by President.
9. A presidential issuance that fixes a date or declares a status or condition of public
moment or interest.
10. It carries weight because of the Constitutional requirement that “every bill must
embrace only one subject which shall be expressed in the title thereof.”

II.

1. Enumerate the eight (8) parts of a statute. [8 pts.]

2. Give the seven (7) presumptions in aid of construction and interpretation. [7 pts.]

3. Distinguish Construction from Interpretation. (2 paragraphs only with 2

sentences each.) [5 pts.]
4. On December 24, 1999 at around 4:00 Pm, Rodolfo Duterdo was driving their
gray Ford Fiera back home, with his daughters, Sarah Jane and a younger one
together with his two year old son. An accidental head on collision occurred
between the Fiera and the Tamaraw being driven by one Lorenzo Gagon, with
Gagon was the accused, Antonio Milliones alias "Buboy". The collision caused
slight damage to the right bumper of the Tamaraw.

While Lorenzo and Rodolfo were having a verbal confrontation, Antonio

approached Rodolfo asking the latter to leave the incident as it was only a minor
incident. However, Rodolfo said that Antonio should not interfere, which made
Antonio irritated and caused the latter to stab Rodolfo, rendering the victim into a
critical condition which later caused his death due to a sepsis infection that has
already circulated in his body.

Antonio was charged initially with Frustrated murder, but was modified to the
crime of murder to which he was convicted with a penalty of Reclusion Perpetua.
Accused-Appellant claims that the penalty of reclusion perpetua is too cruel and
harch as a penalty and pleads for sympathy. If you were the judge, would the
penalty imposed upon the accused "Reclusion Perpetua" be modified or reduced
by virtue of Section 19 (1) of Article III of the Constitution which prohibits the
imposition of death penalty? (Follow the 4-paragraph ALAC format. Answer,
law, application, conclusion format) [10 pts.]

5. What are the test of a valid ordinance? [5 pts.]

6. What are the Rule making power of the Supreme Court as provided by the
Constitution? [5 pts.]

7. On March 22, 1992, petitioner X filed his certificate of candidacy for the position
of member of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of the Province of Misamis del Sur.
On March 25, 1992, petitioner withdrew his certificate of candidacy. In M.R. Nos.
93-2654 and 94-0065 dated November 3, 1993 and February 13, 1994
respectively, the COMELEC imposed upon petitioner the fine of Ten Thousand
Pesos (P10,000.00) for failure to file his statement of contributions and
expenditures. In M.R. No. 94-0594 dated February 24, 1994, the COMELEC
denied the motion for reconsideration of petitioner and deemed final M.R. Nos.
93-2654 and 94-0065. Petitioner went to the COMELEC En Banc (UND No. 94-
040), which denied the petition in a Resolution dated April 28, 1994. Petition for
certiorari was subsequently filed to the Supreme Court.

Petitioner argues that he cannot be held liable for failure to file a statement of
contributions and expenditures because he was a “non-candidate,” having
withdrawn his certificates of candidacy three days after its filing. Petitioner posits
that “it is . . . clear from the law that candidate must have entered the political
contest, and should have either won or lost” under Section 14 of R.A. 7166
entitled “An Act Providing for Synchronized National and Local Elections and for
 Electoral Reforms, Authorizing Appropriations Therefor, and for Other
Purposes”. Petitioner contends that Section 14 of R.A. No. 7166 excludes
candidates who already withdrew their candidacy for election. Is petitioner X
correct? (Follow 4-paragraph ALAC format) [10 pts.]

8. Petitioner Ello filed with the lower court separate informations against sixteen
persons charging them with squatting as penalized by Presidential Decree No.
772. Before the accused could be arraigned, respondent Judge Echaves motu
proprio issued an omnibus order dismissing the five informations (out of 16
raffled) on the grounds (1) that it was alleged that the accused entered the land
through “stealth and strategy”, whereas under the decree the entry should be
effected “with the use of force, intimidation or threat, or taking advantage of the
absence or tolerance of the landowner”, and (2) that under the rule of ejusdem
generis the decree does not apply to the cultivation of a grazing land. From the
order of dismissal, the fiscal appealed to this Court under Republic Act No. 5440.

Resolve whether or not P.D. No. 772 which penalizes squatting and similar acts,
(also) apply to agricultural lands. [10 pts.]

9. What is the doctrine of processual presumption? [5 pts.]

10. How does a bill becomes a law? [5 pts.]

11. Armando Bulawan, with his son in law Kardo Jomillon, was convicted of the
crime of murder and of two counts of frustrated murder for the killing of Raul
Floresca and the wounding of his wife and son, due to an apparent land dispute
between the Folrescas and the petitioner.

Petitioner appealed the matter and he was acquitted because the prosecution failed
to prove conspiracy between him and his son in law. His mere presence was
insufficient to show conspiracy.

Petitioner then filed a claim under RA 7309 section 3(a) which provides for the
payment of compensation to any person who was unjustly accused, convicted,
imprisoned but subsequently released by virtue of a judgment of acquittal.
However, his claim was not sufficient to find him guilty beyond reasonable doubt,
there was nevertheless bad blood between him and the Florescas. There was a
basis in finding that he was "probably guilty." Do the provision of RA 7309
Section 3(a) using the term "unjustly accused" applies to the petitioner? [10 pts.]

12. [P]etitioner Cecilio S. de Villa was charged before the Regional Trial Court of the
National Capital Judicial Region (Makati, Branch 145) with violation of Batas
Pambansa Bilang 22. Petitioner moved to dismiss the Information on the
following grounds: (a) Respondent court has no jurisdiction over the offense
charged; and (b) That no offense was committed since the check involved was
payable in dollars, hence, the obligation created is null and void pursuant to
Republic Act No. 529 (An Act to Assure Uniform Value of Philippine Coin and
Currency). A petition for certiorari seeking to declare the nullity of the RTC
ruling was filed by the petitioner in the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals
dismissed the petition with costs against the petitioner. A motion for
reconsideration of the said decision was filed by the petitioner but the same was
denied by the Court of Appeals, thus elevated to the Supreme Court.

a. Does the RTC Makati have jurisdiction over the case? [5pts.]
b. Is the check in question, drawn against the dollar account of petitioner with a
foreign bank, covered by the Bouncing Checks Law (B.P. Blg. 22).? [5 pts.]