Answer to XXVII is found in Province of North Cotabato vs Republic
Answer to XXI is the reverse application of City of Manila vs Hon. Laguio. You could use the equal protection clause as discussed in Central Bank Employees Association v. Banko Sentral ng Pilipinas.
Doctrine of operative facts is found in UFE vs Vivar, Jr. (http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1992/jan1992/gr_79255_1992.html)
Answer to XVII is found in Neri v. Senate Committee (March 25, 2008)
Answer to XIV can be answered by the Civil Code provisions on nuisances. However, It is advisable to look for Political Law doctrines that is applicable to this case (ei: separation of powers and judicial power).
Answer to XII is found the the Bill of Rights against unreasonable searches and seizures and in the People vs Alicando Case. This is not a case of a consented search (People v. Burgos, 144 SCRA 1), and the care taker cannot waive the owner's right for him. Remember, the question is not asking whether or not the SEIZURE of the motorcycle is valid (Possible application of the plain view doctrine). It is asking whether the SEARCH (of the garage) is valid? AND whether the seizure of the ski masks is valid.
Answer to X: Discuss the elements of the right against self incrimination and give the examiner a conclusion that is contrary to the position of Lt. Valdez. (PS: when someone asks for a certified true copy of a record, certifying that he has custody over the records is part of the duty of a records keeper)
Answer to VIII is found in Neri v. Senate Committee, March 25, 2008.
Answer to VI-B is found in Abakada vs Purisima. See: Legislative Veto. For VI-A apply the direct injury test.
Home
