2013 (Remedial Law) Bar Exam Questions: Essay Question 9

[Answer/discuss the question below. Or jump to Remedial Law Essay Questions: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 10; Remedial Law Multiple Choice Questions: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20; See also Remedial Law Instructions and 2013 Bar Exam: Information, Discussions, Tips, Questions and Results]


For over a year, Nenita had been estranged from her husband Walter  because of the latter’s suspicion that she was having an affair with Vladimir, a barangay kagawad who lived in nearby Mandaluyong. Nenita lived in the meantime with her sister in Makati. One day, the house of Nenita’s sister inexplicably burned almost to the ground. Nenita and her sister were caught inside the house but Nenita survived as she fled in time, while her sister tried to save belongings and was caught inside when the house collapsed.

As she was running away from the burning house, Nenita was surprised to see her husband also running away from the scene. Dr. Carlos, Walter’s psychiatrist who lived near the burned house and whom Walter medically consulted after the fire, also saw Walter in the vicinity some minutes before the fire. Coincidentally, Fr. Platino, the parish priest who regularly hears Walter’s confession and who heard it after the fire, also encountered him not too far away from the burned house.

Walter was charged with arson and at his trial, the prosecution moved to introduce the testimonies of Nenita, the doctor and the priest-confessor,who all saw Walter at the vicinity of the fire at about the time of the fire.

IX(A) May the testimony of Nenita be allowed over the objection of Walter? (3%)

IX(B) May the testimony of Dr. Carlos, Walter’s psychiatrist, be allowed over Walter’s objection? (3%)

IX(C) May the testimony of Fr. Platino, the priest-confessor, be allowed over Walter’s objection? (3%)


  1. Although marami nagsabi na past exam ito, walang recall sa akin, nakalimutan ko din sagot ko as to the wife, but as to the doctor and priest I allowed it since their testimony is based on what they saw and not what has been consulted or confessed to them. Mababaw ata explanation ko sa problem na ito.

  2. Same answer.

    As to the wife, this is an exception to the marital disqualification rule. The marital and domestic relations are alreafy strained that there is no more harmony to be preserved. The identity of interests disappears and the consequent danger of perjury based on that identity is non-existent.

  3. Tama si parkle as to the wife actual case yan, i just forgot the title. and yup previous bar question ito. Although mababaw din sagot ko kasi kulang na sa oras.

    1. Past exam 2006 nga yung about sa wife (although name was changed) and actual case nga Alvarez v. Ramirez, G.R. No. 143439, October 14, 2005. This case, however, gave two alternative answers: a YES and a NO.

      No, Leticia cannot testify over the objection of her
      husband, not under marital privilege which is inapplicable
      and which can be waived, but she would be barred under
      Sec. 22 of Rule 130, which prohibits her from testifying
      and which cannot be waived
      (Alvarez v. Ramirez, G.R. No. 143439, October 14, 2005).
      Yes, Leticia may testify over the objection of her
      husband. The disqualification of a witness by reason of
      marriage under Sec. 22, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules
      of Court has its exceptions as where the marital
      relations are so strained that there is no more harmony
      to be preserved. The acts of Paul eradicate all major
      aspects of marital life. On the other hand, the State has
      an interest in punishing the guilty and
      Remedial Law Bar Examination Q & A (1997-2006)
      exonerating the innocent, and must have the right to
      offer the testimony of Leticia over the objection of her
      husband (Alvarez v. Ramirez, G.R. No. 143439,
      October 14, 2005).

  4. IX(A) there is still an existing marital tie between them but the crime of arson has been committed by one spouse against the other spouse so it is an exception to disqualification of witness by reason of marriage.

  5. The marital tie exists but the domestic relations is strained. Tsaka sa sister nya yung bahay, yung sister ang real party in interest. So its not a case of one against the other in the strict sense.

    Salvador ba ang examiner?

    1. “Nenita and her sister were caught inside the house but Nenita survived as she fled in time”.. if at all this is a classic case of attempted murder in the case of Nenita..

  6. naisip ko kasi na bakang pwedeng i-apply ang special aggravating circumstance that the accused committed arson because of spite or hatred against the owner or occupant of the house para maipasok sya as an exception to disqualification of witness by reason of marriage.

    afaik, yung strained martial relations is only a crucial factor to be an exception to privileged communications between husband and wife. sa facts kasi, walang exchange of communications between nenita ad oliver.

    anyways, sabi nila si salvador nga daw.

    sabi nila

    1. Ganun ba?

      Anyways, share ko lang rin na after ko mag-exam ng Labor Law, may naka-iwan ng last minute tips handout ng Ateneo (Labor Law) na somehow may nakaiwan at napasama sa mga review materials at gamit ko na nakapatong sa green trash bin na nasa labas lang ng assigned room ko. And since yung mga gamit ko na lang yung naiwan sa spot na yun, kinuha ko na rin yung last minute tips na iyon.

      While I was aboard a bus on my way home to Antipolo, I decided to read the last minute tips and to my suprise, the tips were spot on and with at least 80% accuracy sa kung ano ang lumabas sa exam. Nadismaya talaga ako.

      When the 2nd Sunday came, I asked one of my co-examinee from San Beda about their barops last minute tips on Labor Law, she said na sablay daw ang tips ng Beda pero yung sa mga ka-batch nya na nakakuha ng Ateneo last minute tips, marami daw ang tumama sa Labor Law. Napa- ‘Oh I see, swerte naman nila’ na lang ako dahil, well, she just confirmed what I found out after the Labor Law exam.

      (In as much na gustuhin ko mang makakuha sana ng mga Ateneo handout, hindi naman ako nakapag-avail ng barops ng school ko kasi kulang sa pera and wala rin naman akong kakilala kaya nagtyaga na lang ako sa ginawa kong review materials and previous bar exam handouts na pinamana sa aking ng mga senior ko na nakapasa sa 2011 and 2012 bar exams…pero parang hindi rin nakatulong dahil nahirapan talaga ago ng sobra sa mga exam. pero sana suklian ni Lord ang effort ko!)

  7. @Lex Aeterna, wag ka na po mag taka sa mga taga Ateneo at San Beda. Yang mga school nayan 100+ ang examinees nila every year. Guess what 100+ din ang pumapasa sa kanila.

    Dalawa ka si yung last minute tips ng Ateneo: 1. Utopia; at 2. yung sa BarOps nila. Sa Utopia isa, dalawa or tatlo minsan lumalabas. Yung sa Bar Ops dun midyo madami dami… Minsan nga naisip ko, madadaya sila. kawawa tayong mga promdi.

    1. Same here I feel undue advantage na nga masyado, taga probinsya na tayo na kailangan pa bumyahe at gumastos tapos sa mga tips sa exam very accurate ang mga sa kanila na para bang hindi na nga tips ang dating kundi parang leakage na. Mathematically and statistically impossible na nga yung 80 percent halos ng lumalabas ang nasa tips nila.

    2. @Let the Sky Fall So ganun pala. Salamat sa clarification na dalawa pala yung last minute tips from Ateneo. Yung sa Ateneo Barops yung napulot ko na maraming lumabas sa Labor Law. And yes, may disadvantage ang mga taga-province kaya nakakabilib kapag nakakapasa at mas lalo ang mga nakakapasok sa top 10 dahil they made it through with limited resources compared sa mga taga-Manila or from the top law schools.

      1. I agree. Before the Labor law exam, I saw my fellow ka promdi scan two bar tips— yun nga Utopia and Bar ops. And yes, may lumabas talaga e.g. number one. Unfortunately, it was only about fifteen minutes before start of the exam so hindi ko na masyadong naalala. But yes, they came from Manila schools. The problem was it came to my friend’s possession too late. SIguro, this is one of the reasons a lot of probinsiyanos like us prefer to review in Manila or at least contact some people connected with these schools to be able to have “last minute tips”. Still, I feel for those from the province. The disadvantage is out and loud. If only provincial schools have excellent bar operation system, those from the province may have a chance. But until then……

  8. In fairness to those schools naman we have to give credit din sa mga students nila, ganyan din ang naisip ko dati pero narealize ko na if you look at the bigger picture year-in and year-out consistent sila sa passing percentage nila it means may tama na ginagawa ang schools with rgards to study habits or imparted knowledge. Sabi nga ng isang prof ko nun ang bar exam review begins on your first day of law school. Walang itatanong sa bar exam na hindi mo nabasa or nabrowse along the way kung meron man, either nangtrip yung examiner o malas ka lang talaga. Siguro lang ang barops nila has it down to a science, as to how to predict what may be asked. Or worst case may advance notice sila kung sino ang examiner and they collate every info/questions/cases they have in their data bank na favorite topics ng examiners. i don’t know, unfair talaga sa ating lahat pero yun yung perks nila for enrolling in their respective schools.

    1. I agree, not sure. May nabasa pa nga akong comment noon ng isang examinee from a Manila school. Sabi nya, it’s not their fault that their schools would do everything to help them pass the bar, while our schools seems not to care. Hehe. May point sya

  9. Sa ateneo ako nagreview. Yung blue tips nila na binibigay ng 4am every sunday, exclusive sa ateneo graduates yun. Kahit reviewee ka hindi ka bibigyan, unless madiskarte ka. Kaibiganin mo yung mga tao dun. Nakakuha ako at tama kayo, pasok na pasok nga. Lalo na sa merc at ethics.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *